2011 (10) TMI 628 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, dismisses department's appeal

Deepak Vegpro Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer, Alwar And ACIT, Circle-1, Alwar Versus Deepak Vegpro Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the department's appeal. Various additions and disallowances made by the Assessing ... Packing material expenses - invocation of provisions of section 41(1) - disallowance of interest in view of provisions of section 14A - disallowance of telephone expenses - trading addition - withdrawal of depreciation on the Wind Mill - deemed dividend in terms of section 2(22)(e) Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 1 lakh out of packing material expenses.2. Invocation of provisions of section 41(1) of the IT Act and confirming an addition of Rs. 64,215.3. Disallowance of interest of Rs. 92,94,092 under section 14A of the IT Act.4. Disallowance of Rs. 13,098 out of telephone expenses.5. Deleting the trading addition of Rs. 50,00,000 made by AO.6. Deleting the addition of Rs. 25,000 made on account of withdrawal of depreciation on the Wind Mill.7. Deleting addition of Rs. 1,84,15,499 made on account of deemed dividend in terms of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Addition of Rs. 1 lakh out of packing material expenses:The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by its order for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, where similar additions were made and subsequently deleted. Following the precedent, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 1 lakh sustained by the CIT (A).2. Invocation of provisions of section 41(1) of the IT Act and confirming an addition of Rs. 64,215:The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to confirm the addition of Rs. 64,215 under section 41(1) of the IT Act. The CIT (A) had noted that the assessee did not provide confirmations from creditors or details regarding the outstanding payments and the nature of the liability.3. Disallowance of interest of Rs. 92,94,092 under section 14A of the IT Act:The Tribunal found that Rule 8D was not applicable for the year under consideration as it was effective from the assessment year 2008-09. The CIT (A) had directed the AO to work out the disallowance in accordance with section 14A/Rule 8D/Court rulings, which the Tribunal found to be incorrect as the power to set aside issues was removed by the Finance Act, 2001. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the investments in shares and thus, no disallowance under section 14A was warranted. However, the AO was allowed to re-examine the issue if he found that the investments were not made from interest-free funds.4. Disallowance of Rs. 13,098 out of telephone expenses:The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 13,098 made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT (A), noting that in the case of a company, personal use of telephone expenses cannot be disallowed as per precedents set by the Tribunal in similar cases.5. Deleting the trading addition of Rs. 50,00,000 made by AO:The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the trading addition of Rs. 50,00,000, noting that similar additions in earlier years were deleted by the Tribunal. The CIT (A) found no defects in the books of account, stock register, purchase, and consumable stock records maintained by the assessee.6. Deleting the addition of Rs. 25,000 made on account of withdrawal of depreciation on the Wind Mill:The Tribunal confirmed the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 25,000 on depreciation for the Wind Mill, noting that similar disallowances in earlier years were deleted by the Tribunal.7. Deleting addition of Rs. 1,84,15,499 made on account of deemed dividend in terms of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act:The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 1,84,15,499 under section 2(22)(e), finding that the transactions between the assessee and M/s Saurabh Agrotech (P.) Ltd. were business transactions and not loans or advances. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were part of a mutual, open, current, and trade account, and thus, did not fall under the ambit of section 2(22)(e).Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee in part and dismissed the appeal of the department. The order was pronounced in the open court on 21.10.2011.