2018 (10) TMI 434 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80HH and 80I denied - adoption of assessed income of ₹ 1,99,80,660/- by the Assessing Officer as per assessment order dated 30.3.94 - Held that - Whatever addition have been made in the original assessment order would not survive as the original assessment order has become non-est after passing the Order under section 263 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. in pursuance to the Order under section 263 of the I.T. Act, passed the impugned order under section 143(3)/263 dated 31.03.1997. Therefore, whatever addition was made in the original assessment order cannot be repeated/adopted in the impugned order. Therefore, addition of ₹ 1,99,80,657/- as per original assessment order taken in computation of the impugned order is wholly unjustified and is liable to be deleted and set aside CIT(A) after elaborate discussion on the issue of deduction under section 80HH and 80I has allowed such claim of assessee-company. The assessee-company, therefore, rightly contended that it had commenced its business activities prior to 01.04.1990 and as such in assessment year under appeal on making above additions, assessee-company would be having positive income and as such assessee-company would be entitled for claiming deduction under section 80HH/80I on such addition even if it may be presumed that such addition could be made or adopted as per original assessment order in the present impugned order. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons above, we are of the view that addition of ₹ 1,99,80,657/- is unjustified. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of inflated purchases - no inquiry made from the concerned parties or on the documentary evidences filed by assessee-company - Held that - A.O. merely made part addition of ₹ 42.83 lakhs for inflated purchases. Meaning thereby, A.O. accepted the existence of M/s. Trans-Asia Packaging Ltd., and substantial genuine purchases made by assessee-company from this party. The sole reason given by the A.O. was that purchases have been made through various parties originated from M/s. V.T.R. Container (P) Ltd., However, it appears that no inquiry have been made from any of the intermediary party for making the sales to the assessee-company. The A.O. forgot to note that when he taxed the income on sales, he should believe that sales could not be made without any purchases. Since the A.O. did not dispute the existence of M/s. Trans-Asia Packaging Ltd., and that substantial purchases have been made from this party have not been disputed by the A.O, therefore, on account of no inquiry made from the concerned parties or on the documentary evidences filed by assessee-company, no addition could be made against the assessee-company.- Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of adopting assessed income of ?1,99,80,660/- from the original assessment order.
2. Legality of disallowing manufacturing expenses of ?35,34,616/-.
3. Legality of hypothetical disallowances made without detailed examination.
4. Denial of deduction under sections 80HH and 80I.
5. Confirmation of various additions/disallowances without proper material and evidence.
6. Addition of ?42,83,000/- on account of inflated purchases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of adopting assessed income of ?1,99,80,660/- from the original assessment order:

The assessee-company challenged the adoption of the assessed income of ?1,99,80,660/- by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) as per the original assessment order dated 30.03.1994. The assessee argued that since the original assessment order was set aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the adoption of assessed income from that order in the fresh assessment was illegal. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment order had become non-existent after being set aside by the CIT under section 263, and thus, any addition made in the original assessment order could not be repeated or adopted in the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal found the addition of ?1,99,80,657/- as per the original assessment order to be wholly unjustified and deleted it.

2. Legality of disallowing manufacturing expenses of ?35,34,616/-:

The A.O. disallowed the manufacturing expenses of ?35,34,616/- claimed by the assessee-company, citing the absence of separate manufacturing accounts and proper books of account. The Tribunal observed that the A.O. did not make any fresh addition in the computation of income in the impugned order and merely adopted the income from the original assessment order, which was set aside under section 263. Therefore, the disallowance of manufacturing expenses was also found to be unjustified and was deleted.

3. Legality of hypothetical disallowances made without detailed examination:

The assessee-company contended that the disallowances made by the A.O. were hypothetical and not based on a detailed examination of the matter as per the directions given by the CIT under section 263. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention, noting that the A.O. had merely adopted the assessed income from the original assessment order without conducting a fresh examination. Consequently, the Tribunal found the disallowances to be illegal and set them aside.

4. Denial of deduction under sections 80HH and 80I:

The assessee-company claimed deductions under sections 80HH and 80I, which were denied by the A.O. on the grounds that the unit came into operation after 01.04.1990. The Tribunal noted that the assessee-company had commenced its business activities prior to 01.04.1990 and was entitled to the deductions. The Tribunal referred to a similar issue in the assessee's case for A.Y. 1996-1997, where the CIT(A) allowed the deductions under sections 80HH and 80I. Therefore, the Tribunal found the denial of deductions to be unjustified and allowed the deductions.

5. Confirmation of various additions/disallowances without proper material and evidence:

The assessee-company argued that the various additions and disallowances made by the A.O. were without proper material and evidence. The Tribunal found that the A.O. had merely adopted the assessed income from the original assessment order without conducting a fresh examination, which was set aside under section 263. Consequently, the Tribunal found the additions and disallowances to be unjustified and set them aside.

6. Addition of ?42,83,000/- on account of inflated purchases:

The A.O. made an addition of ?42,83,000/- on account of inflated purchases, citing unverifiable purchases from M/s. Trans-Asia Packaging Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the assessee-company had filed several documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of the purchases and sales. The Tribunal also referred to the CIT(A)'s order for A.Y. 1992-1993, which found the existence of M/s. V.T.R. Containers (P) Ltd. to be genuine and deleted a similar addition. The Tribunal found that the A.O. did not dispute the genuineness of the documentary evidence and had not made any inquiry from the concerned parties. Therefore, the Tribunal found the addition to be unjustified and deleted it.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee-company, setting aside the orders of the authorities below and deleting the additions of ?1,99,80,657/- and ?42,83,000/-. The Tribunal also allowed the deductions under sections 80HH and 80I, finding the disallowances and additions made by the A.O. to be unjustified and illegal.

← Previous Next →