2004 (11) TMI 503 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal directs firm assessment, dismisses undisclosed expenditure charges, upholds disallowance deletion.

The Tribunal directed the firm to be assessed as such for the entire financial year, disregarding the license terms, and allowed interest and remuneration ... Business expenditure Issues:1. Assessment of firm status under Income Tax Act.2. Addition of unaccounted purchases under section 69C of the Act.3. Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act.4. Disallowance of outstanding kist payment under section 43B of the Act.Assessment of Firm Status:The case involved cross-appeals by the revenue and the assessee regarding the assessment of the firm status under the Income Tax Act. The dispute arose from the Excise years 1992-93 and 1993-94, where a partner participated in an excise auction and carried out arrack vending business. The Assessing Officer contended that since the license was in the name of one partner, the firm violated the State Excise Act. The CIT(A) partially approved this view. However, the Tribunal noted the significant change in the assessment of firms from 1993-94 onwards. Under section 184, filing a partnership deed specifies individual shares of partners, and the firm is to be assessed as such without the Assessing Officer verifying genuineness. The Tribunal directed the firm to be assessed as such for the entire financial year, disregarding the license terms, and allowed interest and remuneration payable to partners.Addition of Unaccounted Purchases:The next issue concerned the addition of unaccounted purchases under section 69C of the Act. The Assessing Officer added a sum as undisclosed expenditure due to excessive sales over recorded purchases. The CIT(A) dismissed the ground as not pressed. The Tribunal observed that the ground was raised in the appeal memo and written submissions. It concluded that the purchases were part of business revenue and needed to be allowed, despite being considered unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of the disputed amount.Charging of Interest:Regarding the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act, the Tribunal found these charges to be consequential in nature and dismissed this ground accordingly.Disallowance of Outstanding Kist Payment:The final issue focused on the deletion of disallowance of outstanding kist payment under section 43B of the Act. Both parties agreed that the issue was covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a specific case. Following this precedent, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, while that of the revenue was dismissed.