2016 (9) TMI 1318 - AT - Income Tax

Appeals partly allowed, creditors' additions set aside for AO reconsideration. Assessees to be given fair opportunities.

Heera Moti Agro Industries Versus DCIT, Central Circle-I, Chandigarh

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the additions of sundry creditors/trade creditors and non-deduction of TDS on brand charges for ... Addition in respect of sundry creditors/trade creditors - Held that:- The parties have running accounts with the assessee and if similar addition is made, it would give entire trading results of the assessee, to be abnormal. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) should have followed the order for assessment year 2003-04 for the purpose of deleting the addition against the assessee. However, ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that addition is limited to fresh additions only. This reason is also incorrect because ld. counsel for the assessee demonstrated that even if there are some fresh creditors from the same parties appearing in the books of account of the assessee but these are running accounts from the earlier years, therefore, for difference of the amount itself, no such addition should be made against the assessee. Since, no details have been given in the assessment order and the chart now filed have not been considered by the authorities below and also according to the assessee, when no proper opportunity have been given by the Assessing Officer, it would be reasonable and appropriate to restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to re-decide this issue by giving reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to re-decide Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - payments on account of brand charges - non deduction of tds - Held that:- As brand charges were paid to sister concern M/s Meera Moti Spices Pvt. Ltd. who have declared the amount in question in their return of income and paid the taxes. Therefore, when by filing Income Tax Returns and offering sum received for taxation, disallowance would not be justified and matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-examination in view of decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Issues Involved:1. Addition of sundry creditors/trade creditors.2. Addition under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on brand charges.Detailed Analysis:1. Addition of Sundry Creditors/Trade Creditors:Assessment Year 2007-08 (ITA 739/2013)The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 5,92,647/- in respect of sundry creditors/trade creditors. During a search and seizure operation, the Assessing Officer (AO) asked the assessee to file confirmations from the sundry creditors and furnish confirmed ledger accounts. The AO noted that fresh creditors amounting to Rs. 5,92,647/- were introduced during the year, and in the absence of confirmation and ledger accounts, the addition was made.The CIT(A) noted that this issue was covered in the assessment year 2003-04, where an addition of Rs. 55,05,290/- was made due to non-filing of confirmations. The CIT(A) observed that the trading results for the assessment year 2003-04 were accepted by the AO, and the entire balance could not logically be added back. Consequently, the addition for the assessment year 2003-04 was deleted.For the assessment year 2007-08, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of fresh credit amounts. However, the Tribunal noted that the AO did not provide specific findings or details about the parties involved. The Tribunal also noted that the books of account, including the ledger, were in the department's possession, and the purchases were supported by purchase bills and bank statements. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and restored the issue to the AO for reconsideration, following the reasons given by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2003-04.Other Appeals (ITA 756/2013, ITA 568/2013, ITA 750/2013)In these appeals, the assessees challenged additions on account of sundry creditors. The Tribunal followed the decision in ITA 739/2013 and set aside the orders of the authorities below, restoring the issues to the AO for reconsideration.2. Addition under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of TDS on Brand Charges:Assessment Year 2007-08 (ITA 739/2013)The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 4,62,173/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on brand charges paid to a sister concern. The CIT(A) noted that this issue was covered by his findings for the assessment year 2003-04. The AO made the addition based on the Special Auditor's observation that TDS was not deducted on brand charges.The assessee argued that the sister concern had declared the amount in their return of income and paid the taxes. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT Vs Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd., which held that no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) could be made if the payee had filed its return of income and paid the taxes. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for verification of the facts and reconsideration in light of the Delhi High Court's decision.Conclusion:In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, setting aside the orders of the authorities below and restoring the issues to the AO for reconsideration. The AO was directed to provide reasonable opportunities for the assessees to present their cases and to follow the reasoning given by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2003-04.