9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able in totals Income is not allowable? 2- Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing officer no account of unexplained creditors of Rs. 9,70,460/- without appreciating the facts that the AO rightly applied Section 41(1) of the IT Act ? 3- Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing officer on account excess Process Stock declared to the Bank without appreciating the facts that the Assessing officer rightly made addition on after finding difference in stock with the Bank with Rs. 12,58,580/- ? 4- Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing officer on account commission paid on sale without appreciating the facts that the assessee failed to justify the expenses of commission of Rs. 18,60,000/- claimed by the assessee? 5- Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing officer on account of other expenses of Rs. 1,88,35,000/- wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disallowances as mentioned on page no.35 & 36 of the assessment order. 3. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee was given substantial relief. The addition made by the AO and on appeal deleting / restricting the various additions are summarized in the following chart: Sr. No. Nature of Additions/disallowances Addition by A.O. Rs. Addition deleted/sustained by Ld.CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 1. Social Forestry Expenses Rs. 89,60,112/- Deleted to the extent of Rs. 85,38,112/- 2. Adjustment u/s. 145A of the I.T.Act Rs. 26,66,677/- Not under appeal 3. Adjustment u/s. 145A of the IT Act on opening stock (-) Rs. 1,24,34,215/- Not under appeal 4. Unexplained Creditors Rs. 9,70,460/- Deleted/allowed 5. Excess process stock declared to bank Rs. 12,58,580/- Deleted/allowed 6. Disallowance u/s. 14A of the I.T.Act Rs. 21,34,390/- Deleted/allowed 7. Disallowance on account of commission on sales Rs. 18,60,000/- Deleted/allowed 8. Disallowance on account of other expenses Rs. 1,88,35,000/- Deleted/allowed 9. Disallowance on account of Staff Welfare Expenses Rs. 92,55,000/- Deleted/allowed 10. Income from deploym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... integrated activities which is in conjunction with growing sapling on the land is agricultural expenses it has to be disallowed. As stated earlier this issue was first time arose in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2002-03 and after detailed discussion it was decided in favour of assessee. These principles were followed in appeal for subsequent year in A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 in order dated 04.11.2020. The ld.AR submits that order of Tribunal for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2010-11 to 2012-13 is laced on record, accordingly the ld.Counsel submits that the issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee. 8. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that he strongly relied upon the order of AO. 9. We have considered the contention of both the parties and gone through the order of the ld.CIT(A). We have noted that ld. CIT(A) while passing the order followed the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2002-03 dated 09.04.2009. We have further noted that by following the order of Tribunal similar relief was granted to assessee in appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 by passing the following order : " 8. We have considered the rival contention about the parties and have gone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale of saplings not relatable to agricultural operations at Rs. 1.42 lacs. Therefore, agricultural loss would be only Rs. 15.15 - 5.72 = 9.43 lacs. The sale of saplings at Rs. 1.42 lacs would be nonagricultural receipts and therefore cannot be allowed to be adjusted against agricultural expenses. So far as the depreciation of Rs. 4.32 lacs is concerned the same has been claimed on mist chambers other assets used in growing saplings through clonal routes which has been treated as non-agricultural operation in our discussion made in assessment year 2002-03 while disposing of similar ground. Thus, the disallowance is restricted to Rs. 9.43 lacs and accordingly assessee gets relief of Rs. 78.13 - 9.43) = Rs. 68.70 lacs." 2.1 In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that this issue now stood covered by several decisions of the Tribunal pronounced in the past and learned CIT(A) has simply followed one of the said decision, hence, there was no fallacy in the judgment of learned CIT(A), thus required to be affirmed. Resultantly, we find no force in this ground of the assessee. Hence dismissed. 9. Considering the consistent decision of Tribunal on similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dentical facts, the Tribunal in A.Y.2008-09 (supra) had held that there was no change in the facts of the case already considered in the past for A.Y. 2006- 07 and 2007-08 by the Tribunal. On the same lines for A.Y. 2008-09, the ITA No.511 & 634/Ahd/2013 J.K. Paper Ltd. Vs ITO A.Y. 2009- 10 Tribunal has decided the issues in favour of the assessee, relevant portion is reproduced below: "2.4 Ground No.4 is as under: "(4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Surat has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,95,000/- made on account of unexplained creditors without appreciating the fact the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon it to prove the genuineness of the creditors." 2.4.1 Regarding this issue, it was agreed by both the side that similar issue was raised by the revenue in earlier two years i.e. assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 as per ground l(d) and l(c) respectively and therefore, in the present year also, this issue may be decided on similar line. In those two years, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of assessee as per para 15.2 of the tribunal order of earlier two years which is reproduced below: "15.2 We ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue is also rejected." 12. Considering the consistent decision of Tribunal on similar set of fact, we are in agreement with the submission of learned AR of the assessee that this ground of appeal is covered by the decision of Tribunal in earlier years. Hence, we affirms the order of ld CIT(A). No contrary facts or law is brought to our notice to take the other view. Respectfully following the same, the ground of appeal raised by revenue is dismissed." 14. Considering the consistent decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own case and following the principal of consistency and more over the Ld. CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee by following the order of Tribunal, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we affirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). In the result this ground of appeal is dismissed. 15. Ground No.3 relates to deleting the disallowance on excess process stock declared to bank. The ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee submits that ld.CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee relied on the decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2002-03 in order dated 04.09.2009. These principles were followed in appeal for sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, while giving effect to the order of learned CIT(A), in his order dated 11th April 2014, deleted the entire addition. Considering the consistent decisions of Tribunal on similar set of fact in earlier years, we are in agreement with the submission of learned AR of the assessee that this ground of appeal is covered by the decision of Tribunal in earlier years. Hence, we affirms the order of ld CIT(A). No contrary facts or law is brought to our notice to take the other view. Respectfully following the same, this ground of appeal raised by revenue is dismissed." 18. Considering the consistent decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own case and following the principles of consistency and more over the Ld. CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee by following the order of Tribunal, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we affirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). In the result this ground of appeal is dismissed. 19. Ground No.4 relates to deleting the addition made on account of commission paid on sale of Rs. 18,60,000/-. The ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee submits that ld. CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee by taking view that adh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking view that ad-hock disallowance by A.O. is not justified. The Ld. Sr Counsel further submits that in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011- 12, similar ground of appeal was dismissed in order dated 04.11.2020. Accordingly the ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the issue is also squarely covered in favour of assessee. 24. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that he strongly relied upon the order of AO. 25. We have considered the contention of both the parties and gone through the order of the ld. CIT(A). We have noted that ld. CIT(A) while passing the order followed the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2002-03 dated 09.04.2009. We have further noted that by following the order of Tribunal similar relief was granted to assessee in appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 by passing the following order : "26. Ground No. 8 relates to deleting the disallowance of 5% of various expenses of Rs. 1.29 Crore. The learned DR for the revenue submits that the assessee debited Rs. 2593.05 lakhs under the heads Bank charges, transport, Clearing and Forwarding charges, travelling and other miscellaneous expenses. The assessee was asked to provide ledger accounts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintained by assessee. The assessing officer has not specified even a single discrepancy either in the documents or in the reply furnished by assessee. The learned CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee recorded that the assessing officer has not doubted that these expenses were not genuine. Even before us no contrary fact or law is shown to take other view except to raise the plea that the disallowances were made on reasonable basis. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by learned CIT(A), which we affirm. In the result this ground of appeal is also failed." 30. Considering the consistent view of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in appeal for AY 2010-11 to 2012-13 and following the principles of consistency and by following the order of Tribunal, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). no contrary fact or law is brought to our notice to take other view. Hence, we affirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). In the result this ground of appeal is dismissed 31. Ground No.7 relates to deleting the addition made on account of Book Profit computation u/s.14A of the Act of Rs. 21,34,390/-. The ld. Sr. Counsel for the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 42,36,591/-.The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee submits that ld.CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Toshoku Ltd (125 ITR 525 SC) and further Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 in order dated 04.11.2020 allowed similar relief to the assessee by dismissing the identical ground of appeal. The ld. Counsel accordingly submits that the issue is also squarely covered in favour of assessee. 36. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that he strongly relied upon the order of AO. 37. We have considered the contention of both the parties and gone through the orders of lower authorities. We have noted that ld.CIT(A) while passing the order followed the order of his predecessor for AY 2012-13, wherein its was held that commission paid to non-resident for services rendered outside India cannot be deemed to be income accrued or arisen in India. And followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Toshoku Ltd (supra). We have further noted that in appeal for AY 2010-11 to 20112- 13, similar relief was granted by Tribunal to assessee by dismissing the similar ground of appeal rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
