2020 (10) TMI 84 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account on profit on sale of asset - Whether appellant is in a position to establish the genuineness of the transaction as the whole amount of profit has been shown on the income side of Profit and Loss Account? - assessee has claimed higher deduction towards Profit on sale of Assets to the tune of ₹ 16,02,336/- - HELD THAT - Our attention was drawn to computation of income, wherein, ₹ 16,02,336/- was deducted from the income towards Profit on sale of assets while computing income chargeable to tax. DR on the other hand submitted that the matter as now contended by learned counsel for the assessee before tribunal requires verification by the authorities below and the issue can be restored to the file of the AO. This issue needs to be restored to the file of the AO for verification of the claim of the assessee as made out by the learned counsel for the assessee as detailed above. The assessee is directed to produce all the necessary evidences before the AO to substantiate its claim Additions of Prior Period Expenses - AO has disallowed the said expenses on the ground that the assessee has not produced any proof to show that these expenditure were crystallized during the year - contention of the assessee that the assessee has voluntarily suo motu disallowed the said expenses while computing income chargeable to tax and CIT(A) was pleased to direct the AO to verify the genuineness of the claim made by the assessee and delete the same while computing the income chargeable to tax - HELD THAT - As observed that the assessee has claimed prior period expenses in its P L A/c which the assessee has claimed to have voluntarily disallowed the same in computation of income while filing of the return of income with Revenue if that be so, there cannot be double disallowance of the said expenses as the same is not permissible under the provisions of the 1961 Act. AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee and grant adequate relief to the assessee, in case, the assessee has suo motu voluntarily disallowed the Prior Period Expenses while filing the return of income and action of the AO while framing scrutiny assessment has led to double disallowance of the same expenses. Additions of payment made towards earned leaves of the employees - Whether appellant has all the details with respect to payment made towards the said expenditure? - HELD THAT - Additional evidences go to the root of the matter which are to be admitted in the interest of the justice. We have observed that the assessee did not filed these details of employees to whom earn leave was paid before the AO but had filed details of 10 employees along with relevant vouchers to whom earn leave was paid before Ld.CIT(A) but its submissions were not accepted by Ld.CIT(A) as complete details were not furnished nor confirmations were filed by the assessee. Now the assessee has come forward and submitted complete details along with vouchers pertaining to 187 employees to whom Earned Leave of ₹ 13,36,142/- was paid during the previous year relevant to impugned AY . However, these vouchers and details are to be verified by the authorities below and in the interest of justice and in fairness to both the rival parties, we are inclined to restore this matter to the file of the AO for de-novo adjudication. Appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of profit on sale of assets.
2. Disallowance of prior period expenses.
3. Disallowance of payment towards earned leave.

Detailed Analysis:

A) Disallowance of Profit on Sale of Assets:
The assessee credited ?13,45,194 to its Profit & Loss Account as 'Profit on sale of Assets' but claimed a higher deduction of ?16,02,336 while computing its taxable income. The differential amount of ?2,57,142 was added to the taxable income by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee included ?2,57,142 as part of 'Miscellaneous Receipts' in its financial statements and deducted the total amount of ?16,02,336 while computing taxable income. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim, directing the assessee to provide necessary evidence. The AO must ensure no income escapes taxation, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

B) Disallowance of Prior Period Expenses:
The AO disallowed ?8,70,532 as prior period expenses, stating the assessee did not prove these expenses were crystallized during the year. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify if the assessee had voluntarily disallowed these expenses while filing the return to avoid double disallowance. The Tribunal upheld this direction, emphasizing the AO must ensure no double disallowance occurs and provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to present evidence.

C) Disallowance of Earned Leave Payments:
The AO disallowed ?13,36,142 claimed as earned leave payments due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting the assessee failed to provide complete employee details and confirmation letters. The assessee submitted additional evidence, including a list of 187 employees and payment vouchers, claiming the factory's location hindered earlier submission. The Tribunal admitted these additional evidences and restored the issue to the AO for de-novo adjudication, directing the assessee to present all necessary details and the AO to verify the genuineness of the expenses, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice.

General Ground:
Ground Number 4 was deemed general and premature, thus dismissed without separate adjudication.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for de-novo verification and adjudication by the AO, ensuring fair opportunity and adherence to legal principles.