Addition under section 158B(b) deleted as gift register and search records fail to establish sale or undisclosed income

ITAT, MUMBAI held the addition under section 158B(b) unsustainable for lack of cogent evidence, finding the gift register impounded at search did not establish sale, use, nexus with undisclosed income, or meet Chapter XIVB evidentiary requirements. The Tribunal found the AO relied on conjecture and exceeded the limits of section 158B(a)/(b), noting computation must be based on materials arising from search/requisition; therefore the addition was deleted and the AO directed to delete the same.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legitimacy of additions made by the Assessing Officer based on the "gift item register" found during the search.
2. Justifiability of the disallowance of 'sales promotion expenses' under Chapter XIV-B of the Act.
3. Validity of the comparison made by the Assessing Officer with other traders.
4. Burden of proof regarding the expenditure on sales promotion items.
5. Applicability of the provisions of Chapter XIV-B for assessment of undisclosed income.

Summary:

1. Legitimacy of Additions Based on Gift Item Register:

The appeal by the assessee challenges the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range, Thane, passed u/s 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Block Period from 1-4-1985 to 16-11-1995. A search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee, and a 'gift item register' was found. The Assessing Officer made additions based on this register, which contained incomplete entries for the period 1994-95. The register was not complete, and the Assessing Officer drew presumptions based on it, leading to additions in the block assessment for all the years.

2. Justifiability of Disallowance of 'Sales Promotion Expenses':

At the assessment stage, the assessee was asked to provide details of 'sales promotion expenses' and produce records regarding the distribution of 'sales promotion items'. The assessee claimed these expenses were approximately 1 to 1.5% of sales. The Assessing Officer found the expenditure on sales promotion to be high compared to other concerns in the same business line and considered the percentage of sales promotion expenses claimed by other firms. The onus of proving the expenditure was placed on the assessee, who explained that the expenses were incurred to boost sales due to steep competition in the liquor trade. The expenditure was said to be fully vouched and verifiable, with purchases made by account payee cheques.

3. Validity of Comparison with Other Traders:

The assessee argued that it dealt with less known brands of liquor, necessitating higher sales promotion expenses to boost sales. The Assessing Officer compared the assessee with firms dealing in well-known brands, which the assessee claimed was not a fair comparison. The assessee provided schemes for the distribution of sales promotion articles and argued that the expenditure was reasonable and in conformity with business needs.

4. Burden of Proof Regarding Expenditure:

The Assessing Officer noted that merely filing a list of persons from whom sales promotion items were purchased and details of payment was insufficient to discharge the onus. However, the assessee argued that it was not customary to obtain receipts for gifted items and that maintaining a register for such items was not pragmatic. The expenditure on gift items was fully vouched, verifiable, and payments were made by account payee cheques. No undisclosed stock of gift items was found during the search, indicating no undisclosed income.

5. Applicability of Provisions of Chapter XIV-B:

The assessee contended that the disallowance was beyond the scope of Chapter XIV-B, which deals with the assessment of 'undisclosed income' as a result of search. The term 'undisclosed income' u/s 158B(b) refers to income hidden from the department. The sales promotion expenses were disclosed in the returns and considered during regular assessments. The Assessing Officer cannot make roving enquiries into completed assessments unless direct evidence of undisclosed income is found during the search. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's addition was based on presumptions and assumptions without cogent material or evidence.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition and directed the deletion of the same. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

---