2016 (2) TMI 1024 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decisions on trading addition, purchases, and salary expenses.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) appropriately considered ... Gross profit rate adopted in making treating addition adopting the gross profit rate of the preceding year - Held that:- CIT (A) has admitted that there is a possibility of discrepancies in party accounts and the same cannot be ruled out due to lack of proper reconciliation as well as the stock register was not maintained by the assessee but the CIT(A) also has given a finding that all the payments were made through banking channels and assessee has given ledger account and copies of letters of credit before the Assessing Officer. The assessee company also submitted confirmation of the parties as per the Assessing Officer ’s enquiry. The CIT(A) has rightly added ₹ 10 lacs and deleted the remaining disallowance. Hence, Ground No. 1 to 7 will not sustain. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of TDS by making the payment for the various expenses - Held that:- CIT(A) has given a finding that in all respective salary and wages there was no payment which was made above 50,000/- and, therefore, the same is not coming under the purview of Section 194C for TDS deduction. The record also speaks the same. The remand report also has not stated that there was a payment more than ₹ 50,000/- to any of the administrative staff or outsiders related to the expenses. Hence, these grounds are also not sustainable. Salary expenses disallowed - Held that:- As relates to expenditure under the head salary the assessee filed the details before the Assessing Officer and the same was not controverted by the Assessing Officer in the remand proceedings. Thus, this ground also does not sustain. Revenue appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Restriction of trading addition.2. Acceptance of incomplete books of accounts and bills.3. Discrepancies in purchases from three parties.4. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS.5. Disallowance of salary expenses.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Restriction of Trading Addition:The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the trading addition from Rs. 1,45,01,481/- to Rs. 10,68,331/-, thereby giving a relief of Rs. 1,34,33,150/-. The CIT(A) observed that the drastic reduction in gross profit (G.P) ratio was due to the inclusion of duty drawback in the sales, which reduced from 14.5% to 2.5%, affecting the G.P rate. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contention that all payments were made through banking channels and attributed the discrepancies to a lack of proper reconciliation and non-maintenance of the stock register. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the addition was rightly restricted based on the documentary evidence provided.2. Acceptance of Incomplete Books of Accounts and Bills:The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee's contention that the gross profit of the year was supported by books of accounts, bills, and vouchers, despite the fact that complete books and bills were not produced. The CIT(A) found that the assessee provided sufficient evidence, including ledger accounts and confirmations from parties, to support their claims. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the discrepancies were minor and did not justify a higher trading addition.3. Discrepancies in Purchases from Three Parties:The Revenue highlighted discrepancies in purchases from City Creations Pvt. Ltd., Rainbow Enterprises, and Raja Fashions. The CIT(A) found minor differences in the amounts confirmed by the parties and the amounts recorded in the assessee's books. The CIT(A) made an addition of Rs. 10,68,331/- to account for these discrepancies and deleted the remaining disallowance. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the CIT(A) had considered the facts and documentary evidence appropriately.4. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of TDS:The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) from Rs. 3,07,29,707/- to Rs. 53,000/-. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contention that no TDS was required as the payments were below the threshold limit and were made to in-house employees or through banking channels. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the remand report did not indicate any payments exceeding Rs. 50,000/- that would require TDS deduction.5. Disallowance of Salary Expenses:The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of salary expenses. The CIT(A) found that the disallowance was made on an ad-hoc basis without any proper reasoning or adverse findings. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the Assessing Officer could not controvert the voluminous details filed by the assessee during the remand proceedings.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had appropriately considered the facts, documentary evidence, and legal principles in restricting the trading addition, accepting the books of accounts, addressing discrepancies in purchases, and disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) and salary expenses. The order was pronounced in the open court on 15th February 2016.