Tribunal allows deduction under Section 80HHC, rejects Section 68 for unexplained creditors.

The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, allowing the assessee's appeal by accepting the deduction under Section 80HHC and rejecting the application of Section 68 for unexplained sundry creditors. The order was pronounced on 30.09.2011.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 regarding unexplained sundry creditors.
2. Denial of deduction under Section 80HHC of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 regarding unexplained sundry creditors:
The Department contended that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not fulfilling the provisions of Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, even in cases of contrary affidavits and denial of transactions. The Department also argued that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not confirming the identity of 10 creditors, thus failing to fulfill the onus on the assessee to furnish requisite details.

The assessee argued that the sundry creditors were small-time karigars who did assembling/finishing/polishing from their homes, had no bank accounts, and accepted payments in cash. The records were destroyed in a fire, making it impossible to provide further identification.

The AO initially disallowed Rs. 37,99,907/- as unexplained sundry creditors, as the assessee could only furnish details for 20 out of 75 creditors, which were also found to be non-genuine. The CIT(A) observed that the amount regarding 55 sundry creditors should be treated as unexplained income. However, considering the regular business dealings, loss of books in fire, and confirmations filed by the assessee, the CIT(A) held that the remaining 20 creditors could not be treated as non-genuine.

The Tribunal noted that the trading account of the assessee had been accepted, implying that the purchases made were also accepted. The Tribunal emphasized that the applicability of Section 68 is not mandatory and automatic. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances, including the destruction of records in a fire, the Tribunal opined that the provisions of Section 68 should not have been applied mechanically.

The Tribunal further noted that the assessee had an outstanding liability of Rs. 37,99,907/- towards sundry creditors and assets in the form of advances to suppliers, debtors, and closing stock. This indicated that the creditors were genuine. The Tribunal also highlighted that Section 68 gives discretion to the assessing officer, and it is not mandatory to add the outstanding credits as income if the assessee fails to satisfy the AO.

2. Denial of deduction under Section 80HHC of the I.T. Act, 1961:
The CIT(A) denied the deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of the addition made on account of the creditors, stating that the addition could not be considered as income derived from exports. The assessee contended that the creditors represented purchases and there was no reason for knot allowing the benefit under Section 80HHC.

The Tribunal noted that Section 80HHC provides a complete scheme for computing the deduction, where the profits of the business are computed as a whole, and the export profit is worked out proportionately. The addition made on account of trade creditors would increase the profit of the business, and thus, the CIT(A) was not justified in denying the deduction under Section 80HHC.

The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of 'CIT vs. Margaret's Hope Tea Co. Ltd.', where it was held that addition on account of cash credit under Section 68 would add to the business income. Similarly, the creditors in the assessee's case represented purchases, and there was no reason for not allowing the benefit of Section 80HHC.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found the Department's appeal to be without merit and dismissed it. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's appeal, allowing the deduction under Section 80HHC and rejecting the application of Section 68 for the unexplained sundry creditors. The order was pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2011.

---