2017 (3) TMI 474 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on defect in Books of Account - Shortages in oil and grease - Held that - AR at the time of hearing further filed in the paper book a copy of order of the Excise department in assessee s own case thereby it is absolutely clear that shortages had arose in view of the nature of the business of oil and grease while taking into the small containers for retain sale or in the normal course of business which is much incidental. Copy of the order of the Excise department is also on record as filed in the paper book. That further more the First Appellate Authority has to be a reasoned order regarding the issue and we do not find any infirmity with the same. Therefore the relief granted to the assessee is hereby sustained. This ground of appeal by the revenue is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of provision for leave encashment - Held that - CIT(A) while adjudicating the rights and liabilities have examined the relevant portions of the assessment order, Tax audit report, computation of income and acknowledgement of return for A.Y.2002-03 to 2007-08. The issue that the appellant has actually added back the provision of leave encashment for all the years 2002-03 to 2007-08 is verified from these documents. The ld. CIT(A) has put forth a speaking order wherein the records itself being verified by the First Appellate Authority and it also finds mention in the order itself that the assessee has not claimed any provision for leave encashment written back as deduction in any of the previous year starting from A.Y.2002-03 and onwards. There is also that the total addition made by the assesse during A.Y.2002-03 to 2007-08 under the provision of section 43B(f) of the Act exceeds the claim made by the assessee on account of the reversal and therefore the claim of the assessee is to be allowed. That on these observations we find acceptance with the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the relief granted to the assessee is hereby sustained. This ground of appeal by the revenue is dismissed.- Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of provision of doubtful debts - AO disallowed the claim as he assessee has taken the write off provision of doubtful debts in the profit and loss account but in the computation of income has taken it out of income which is not permissible as per the accounting policy - Held that - CIT(A) however also verified from the records that the assessee has not claimed any provision for doubtful debts as deduction in any of the previous year. That with these observations the ld. CIT(A) held that in assessee s own case for A.Y.2008- 09 on this issue more particularly when the assessee is adding back on a consistent basis the provision for doubtful debt to arrive at the total taxable income. The ld. CIT(A) held that deduction claimed by the assessee in regard to the provision for doubtful debts written back is to be allowed and therefore the AO was correctly directed to delete the disallowance on this account. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition due to shortages in oil and grease.
2. Deletion of addition on account of provision for leave encashment.
3. Deletion of addition on account of provision for doubtful debts written back.
4. General grounds for modification of appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition Due to Shortages in Oil and Grease:

For A.Y. 2009-10, the AO noticed shortages in oil and grease and added ?79,03,108/- to the income, citing a lack of proper explanation from the assessee. The assessee argued that such shortages are normal in their business due to the liquid and semi-liquid nature of the products, which are susceptible to storage loss. The CIT(A) accepted this explanation, noting that similar issues were resolved in favor of the assessee in previous years and that the shortages were within acceptable limits (0.5%). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the shortages were a normal business occurrence and there was no evidence of illegal removal of goods. Thus, the addition was deleted.

For A.Y. 2008-09, a similar issue arose with an addition of ?14,22,257/-. The Tribunal, following the reasoning for A.Y. 2009-10, dismissed this ground of appeal by the Revenue.

2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Provision for Leave Encashment:

For A.Y. 2009-10, the AO disallowed ?14,41,000/- for leave encashment, referencing a Supreme Court SLP against a Calcutta High Court decision. The assessee clarified that they had not claimed this provision as a deduction in previous years and had added back the provision from A.Y. 2002-03 to 2007-08. The CIT(A) verified these claims and found them genuine, directing the AO to delete the disallowance. The Tribunal upheld this decision, confirming the correctness of the CIT(A)'s verification process.

For A.Y. 2008-09, the AO disallowed ?59,38,672/- (corrected to ?14,17,9276/-). The Tribunal noted that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court and directed the AO to await the final decision from the Apex Court.

3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Provision for Doubtful Debts Written Back:

For A.Y. 2009-10, the AO disallowed ?13,54,419/- for doubtful debts, arguing that it was not an ascertained liability. The assessee contended that they had not claimed this provision as a deduction in previous years and had added back the provision in the relevant years. The CIT(A) verified this and found the claim genuine, directing the AO to delete the disallowance. The Tribunal upheld this decision, confirming the CIT(A)'s verification.

For A.Y. 2008-09, the AO disallowed ?11,35,554/- (corrected to ?8,30,709/-). The Tribunal, following the reasoning for A.Y. 2009-10, dismissed this ground of appeal by the Revenue.

4. General Grounds for Modification of Appeal:

The Tribunal noted that the general grounds for modification of appeal did not require adjudication for both assessment years.

Conclusion:

The appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 was dismissed entirely, while for A.Y. 2008-09, grounds 1 and 3 were dismissed, and ground 2 was allowed for statistical purposes, pending the Supreme Court's decision.

Order Pronounced:

The order was pronounced in the Court on 28.02.2017.