2013 (11) TMI 517 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal grants partial relief in appeal, addressing disallowance and addition, defers interest and penalty decisions.

RIDDHI STEEL & TUBES PVT LTD Versus ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-5, AHMEDABAD

RIDDHI STEEL & TUBES PVT LTD Versus ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-5, AHMEDABAD - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.2. Disallowance of differential depreciation.3. Addition under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act for unexplained investment in stock.4. Charging of interest under Sections 234A/B/C of the Income Tax Act.5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia):The assessing officer disallowed Rs.1,93,150/- under Section 40(a)(ia) based on a discrepancy in the provision for TDS payable on contractor payments. The assessee argued that the provision was excessive by Rs.3,863/-, and all taxes were duly deducted and deposited. The Tribunal found that the disallowance was based on presumptions without concrete evidence of non-compliance. It directed the assessing officer to verify the details and ensure compliance with Chapter XVII-B before making any disallowance.2. Disallowance of Differential Depreciation:The assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.86,01,248/- in the Tax Audit Report but inadvertently claimed Rs.78,39,042/- in the return of income. The assessing officer did not allow the differential amount of Rs.7,62,206/- as it was not claimed in a revised return. The Tribunal held that while the assessing officer cannot entertain new claims without a revised return, appellate authorities can. It directed the assessing officer to allow the differential depreciation after verification.3. Addition under Section 69B for Unexplained Investment in Stock:The assessing officer added Rs.10,39,75,306/- based on the discrepancy between the stock declared to Canara Bank and the closing stock in books. The Tribunal noted that the stock was inflated in the bank statement to avail higher credit facilities, and the stock was hypothecated, not pledged. It cited several High Court decisions, emphasizing that additions cannot be made solely based on inflated bank statements without evidence of undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no defects in the assessee's books, which were accepted by tax and excise authorities. It concluded that the addition was unjustified and directed its deletion.4. Charging of Interest under Sections 234A/B/C:This issue was deemed consequential to the Tribunal's findings on other grounds. The assessing officer was directed to take a decision as per law.5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):The Tribunal found this issue premature and did not adjudicate on it.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, providing relief on the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) and the addition under Section 69B, while directing the assessing officer to verify and allow the differential depreciation. The issues regarding interest and penalty were left to be decided as per law and at a later stage, respectively.