2022 (12) TMI 1090 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of trade payables above on lakh - addition to the income of the assessee company - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - Appreciating the matter on record it can be observed that primarily on the basis of no adverse observations on the purchases the Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the additions at the same time perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A) took into consideration the fact that assessee had only submitted part evidences of confirmation - Bench is of opinion, if assessee was not having sufficient time for filing confirmations before Ld. AO, an attempt could have been made to file those before Ld. First Appellate Authority. However, Ld. CIT(A) instead of proceeding to make an inquiry on this own or to given opportunity to the assessee, deleted the additions made by the Ld. AO. AO was proceeding with assessment on limited scrutiny as to mismatch in sale and large current liability in comparison to total assets, then only for the reason for not questioning purchases the opinion of Ld. AO could not have been interfered, when otherwise before Ld. CIT(A) there was no additional material or evidences. That being so, the grounds raised by revenue are sustained. The Appeal of Revenue is allowed and impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and one of Ld. AO is restored.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of trade payables above one lakh.
2. Addition of advance from customers above one lakh.
3. Applicability of provisions of section 68.
4. Applicability of provisions of section 41.
5. Challenge to the order of Ld. CIT(A).

Addition of Trade Payables Above One Lakh:
The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to provide confirmations for trade payables above one lakh, resulting in an addition of Rs. 3,41,56,172 to the income. However, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer did not issue enquiry letters under sec. 133(6) and failed to consider the capacity and genuineness of the creditors. The CIT(A) referenced a similar case and held that since the trading results were accepted, no addition should be made under section 68. The Tribunal noted the CIT(A) considered only partial evidence submitted by the assessee and should have allowed an opportunity for further submissions. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue's grounds, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring that of the Assessing Officer.

Addition of Advance from Customers Above One Lakh:
Similarly, the Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 3,97,586 related to advance from customers above one lakh. The Revenue argued that the assessee did not provide cross-confirmations from the parties involved. The Tribunal, considering the lack of complete evidence submitted by the assessee, agreed with the Revenue's contentions and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

Applicability of Provisions of Section 68:
The CIT(A) analyzed the provisions of section 68 concerning the assessee's sundry creditors for purchases. The CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer did not fully appreciate the facts of the case and failed to issue necessary enquiry letters. Citing precedents, the CIT(A) concluded that the Assessing Officer's approach was incorrect, as the trading results were accepted, and no disallowance was warranted. The Tribunal, however, observed that the CIT(A) did not consider all evidence submitted by the assessee, leading to the restoration of the Assessing Officer's order.

Applicability of Provisions of Section 41:
Regarding the applicability of section 41, the CIT(A) referenced a similar case to support the conclusion that no addition could be made for remission or cessation of trading liability. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) on this aspect, upholding the decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Challenge to the Order of Ld. CIT(A):
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order on various grounds related to the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee during the hearings and the failure to provide confirmations for the outstanding amounts. Considering the limited scrutiny conducted by the Assessing Officer and the lack of additional material before the CIT(A), the Tribunal sided with the Revenue, allowing the appeal and restoring the Assessing Officer's order.

In summary, the Tribunal addressed issues related to additions of trade payables and advance from customers above one lakh, the applicability of sections 68 and 41, and the challenge to the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing complete evidence, proper assessment procedures, and adherence to legal provisions in determining the tax liabilities of the assessee.