2019 (4) TMI 1023 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of Mining Expenses - unvouched expenses - HELD THAT - As gone through the remand report of the Assessing Officer exhibited elsewhere. We find that the first appellate authority gave two opportunities to the Assessing Officer with a specific direction to specify the unvouched expenses under the head mining expenses. On the basis of such specific direction, the Assessing Officer examined the accounts and reported that the expenses were not supported by bills and vouchers. On the basis of such report, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of ₹ 83,17,261/-. We do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A). - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order allowing mining expenses - Disallowance of expenses - Verification of expenses - Addition by Assessing Officer - Additional evidence submitted - Remand report by Assessing Officer - Unvouched expenses under mining expenses - Confirmation of addition by CIT(A) - Dispute on balance of expenditure - Appeal by Revenue dismissed.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) pertaining to the disallowance of mining expenses for the A.Y 2007-08. The Revenue contended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing expenses amounting to &8377; 9,81,39,180 out of the total disallowance of &8377; 10,64,56,411 made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of the expenses on an adhoc basis due to lack of supporting documentation, resulting in the addition of the disallowed amount.

During the assessment proceedings, the assessee, engaged in pig iron manufacturing, was asked to produce evidence for the debited mining expenses. Despite multiple opportunities, the Assessing Officer found that a significant portion of the expenses lacked proper documentation. The ld. CIT(A) admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the unvouched expenses specifically under the head of mining expenses.

The Assessing Officer's remand report highlighted that a substantial amount of expenses were unsupported by bills and vouchers. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed an addition of &8377; 8,31,726 and deleted the balance of &8377; 9,81,39,180. The Revenue argued that the Assessing Officer couldn't examine all vouchers, while the assessee's counsel supported the CIT(A)'s decision.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the ld. CIT(A) had appropriately considered the Assessing Officer's report and the lack of documentation for a significant expense amount. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition of &8377; 83,17,261 and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 12.04.2019, with the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 3440/DEL/2016 being rejected.