2018 (2) TMI 864 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal decision: Revenue appeal partly allowed, assessee's cross-objection dismissed. Detailed analysis provided.

The revenue's appeal was partly allowed, and the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed. The Tribunal provided detailed analysis for each issue, ... Addition under the head salary - assessee was unable to prove the attendance of the employee through attendance register - Held that:- In the FY 2012-13, the assessee company has itself got registered with the PF authorities retrospectively from FY 2007-08 onwards and that in the present FY i.e. 2008-09 the liability towards PF has been remitted and for the relevant assessment year under consideration the assessee has produced before us the list of 21 employees for whom the PF has been remitted. This particular fact though stated before the CIT(A) have not been verified by the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, we are of the considered view that this fact of the assessee getting the registration under the PF Authorities and the fact of remitting the amount in the name of employees (21 nos.) need to be verified by the AO and thereafter, the AO has to adjudicate this issue afresh. Therefore, we set aside this issue back to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. Addition of discrepancies in figures of bad debts, commission - Held that:- AO has made the disallowance merely on the basis that the Postal Department has returned the notice issued to them with the remarks that ‘Not Known’ which action we don’t countenance. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has appreciated the facts in the right perspective and therefore rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 3,14,392/- since the bad debt is an allowable deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii). Once the assessee has written off the bad debt as irrecoverable in its books in the previous year in which claim of deduction is made, then the amount written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year in question has to be allowed. We note that these debts were included in sales in earlier years and, therefore, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT), we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of revenue. Addition of payment made to M/s. Todi Investors - allowable busniss expenses - Held that:- CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee that the borrowed capital was used in its business either for the purchase or for day to day financial necessity. The genuinity of the borrowing and interest payment were verified and confirmed by the AO of the assessee from the AO of the Todi Investor i.e. ITO, Ward 31(4), Kolkata. In the light of the aforesaid facts without bringing any material to show that the assessee had used the borrowed capital for non-business purpose, merely on surmises and conjectures the assessee’s claim ought not to have been disallowed. Addition on the ground that the incentive and discount claimed by the assessee was not actually passed to the customers - non deduction of tds - Held that:- CIT(A) has taken note of the fact that assessee has admitted to have not deducted TDS on an amount of ₹ 1,29,563/- incentive payment made to dealers and, therefore, he restricted the disallowance to ₹ 1,29,563/-. Since the assessee has not pressed the disallowance restricted by the Ld. CIT(A) the same is confirmed and the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of deleting ₹ 2,24,773/- which is an allowable expenditure as per the ratio decidendi of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. (2005 (1) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA High Court ), we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) Addition of advance from customers - Held that:- CIT(A) has clearly made a finding that the advances given to the assessee for purchase of vehicles is nothing but trade advances and not cash credits. The Ld. CIT(A) has found that for the advances given by the customers, the assessee has supplied the goods (vehicles) and, therefore, there is no justification for the AO to treat these cash advances as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 and, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition which does not require any interference Addition on the ground of registration expenses - Held that:- The registration of a vehicle has to be done as per the procedure prescribed by the Motor Vehicles Act governing the subject. The extra expenses other than registration fees applicable as per the Motor Vehicles Act of West Bengal is not an allowable expenditure unless the assessee is able to prove with cogent evidence as to the genuineness of the expenditure. In this case, since the assessee has been able to only file the affidavit of an employee Shri Rabindra Nath Bhattacharya which is self serving and without any other evidence to prove that the amount has been spent legally it cannot be allowed. Therefore, we reverse the order of Ld. CIT(A) and uphold the disallowance Addition invoking sec. 40(a)(ia) in respect to expenditure claimed by assessee on account of repair and maintenance - Held that:- Since the sums credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid to the account of the contractor did not exceed ₹ 50,000/- during the assessment year, the amount credited or paid was not liable for TDS u/s. 194C, CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance made by the AO u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act Issues Involved:1. Deletion and confirmation of additions under the head Salary.2. Deletion of addition of discrepancies in figures of bad debts and commission.3. Deletion of addition of payment made to M/s. Todi Investors.4. Deletion of addition of incentive and discount claimed by the assessee.5. Deletion of addition in respect of advance from customers.6. Deletion of addition on the ground of registration expenses.7. Deletion of addition under the head 40(a)(ia) for payment made on account of repair and maintenance.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion and Confirmation of Additions under the Head Salary:The revenue appealed against the deletion of Rs. 7,46,614/- under the head Salary, while the assessee cross-objected the confirmation of Rs. 1,50,459/-. The assessee claimed Rs. 13,41,079/- as salary expenses, but the AO disallowed Rs. 8,97,073/- due to lack of supporting documents. The Ld. CIT(A) provided partial relief, allowing Rs. 7,46,614/- and confirming Rs. 1,50,459/- as unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying the assessee's registration with PF authorities and the remittance of PF amounts.2. Deletion of Addition of Discrepancies in Figures of Bad Debts and Commission:The AO disallowed Rs. 3,14,392/- claimed as bad debts, citing lack of specific claims and unserved notices. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the bad debts were written off as irrecoverable and included in sales from earlier years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in TRF Ltd. v. CIT, which allows deduction of bad debts written off in the books.3. Deletion of Addition of Payment Made to M/s. Todi Investors:The AO disallowed Rs. 1,91,641/- as interest payment to M/s. Todi Investors, questioning the business purpose of the loan. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the genuineness of the borrowing and interest payment was verified. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the borrowed capital was used for business purposes.4. Deletion of Addition of Incentive and Discount Claimed by the Assessee:The AO disallowed Rs. 3,54,336/- for lack of evidence and failure to deduct TDS. The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,29,563/- for non-deduction of TDS on incentives. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, confirming the CIT(A)'s decision based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. v. CIT.5. Deletion of Addition in Respect of Advance from Customers:The AO added Rs. 66,36,099/- as unexplained advances from customers. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the advances were trade advances, not cash credits, and were adjusted against sales in subsequent years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the advances were supported by complete details and were received against vehicle bookings.6. Deletion of Addition on the Ground of Registration Expenses:The AO disallowed Rs. 4,46,518/- claimed as registration expenses, questioning the business purpose. The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 20%, allowing Rs. 3,57,215/-. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, upholding the AO's disallowance of Rs. 4,46,518/- due to lack of proper evidence for the expenses.7. Deletion of Addition under the Head 40(a)(ia) for Payment Made on Account of Repair and Maintenance:The AO disallowed Rs. 59,920/- for non-deduction of TDS on repair and maintenance expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the payment did not exceed the threshold for TDS. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the amount was not liable for TDS under section 194C.Conclusion:The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed, and the cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed. The Tribunal provided detailed analysis and directions for each issue, ensuring compliance with legal standards and principles.