2018 (5) TMI 348 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A) order on stock expenses and disallowances, directs verification, appeal partly allowed

Mr. Irshad Mohd. Siddiqui Versus Addl. CIT-32, Mumbai

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, upholding additions to closing stock for proportionate expenses and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The ... Addition to the closing stock by way of inputting proportionate expenses towards custom duty and clearing charges - Held that:- As assessee was given ample opportunities by the departmental authorities to explain as to why proportionate charges should not be loaded to the closing stock, that he did not file any explanation in that regard, that the FAA had restricted the addition to the custom duty and clearing charges only, that he had given relief to the assessee about the indirect expenses. As the assessee had loaded custom duty and the clearing charges to the P&L account, it was his duty to include the same while valuing the closing stock for the year under consideration. Failure on part of the assessee resulted in addition made by the AO and partly sustained by the FAA. No legal infirmity in the order of the FAA, as the assessee has not followed the provisions of the Act as well as the accounting standards. - Decided against the assessee. TDS u/s 194C - Addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) - no tax was deducted from clearing and forwarding charges - Held that:- FAA has not considered the argument of double disallowance, as the assessee had not argued the same before him. We are of the opinion that double taxation/double deductions are not to be allowed/made while determining the income of an assessee for a particular year. We would direct the AO to make verification in that regard and restrict the disallowance at one place only, as submitted by the assessee for verification purposes we restore that the issue to the file of the AO Addition made under section 68 - Held that:- Assessee did not file the most crucial document i. e. the bank statement of the NRI creditors, though he had been asked to do so on more than one occasions. As he could not prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the NRI. s, so, the departmental authorities were left with no option but to make/confirm the additions of the disputed amount to the total income of the assessee. - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Challenge to the order of the CIT(A)2. Addition to closing stock for proportionate expenses3. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)4. Addition under section 68 for unexplained cash creditAnalysis:1. Challenge to CIT(A) Order:The appellant challenged the order of the CIT(A) dated 01/02/2016. The assessment completed on 21/01/2014 determined the total income at Rs. 1,80,61,450 under section 143(3) of the Act. The first ground of appeal was not considered as it did not arise from the FAA's order.2. Addition to Closing Stock:The AO added Rs. 85.50 lakhs to the closing stock for proportionate expenses. The appellant failed to provide necessary details, resulting in the addition. The FAA upheld the addition, emphasizing the necessity to value closing stock by adding proportionate direct expenses as per the Act. The FAA reduced the addition to Rs. 85.50 lakhs from Rs. 91.04 lakhs.3. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia):A disallowance of Rs. 28.73 lakhs was made under section 40(a)(ia) as the appellant failed to deduct tax at source from clearing and forwarding charges. The FAA dismissed the appellant's claim based on circular 723, stating insufficient evidence to support non-applicability of TDS. The disallowance was upheld.4. Addition under Section 68:An addition of Rs. 38.26 lakhs was made under section 68 for unexplained cash credit. The appellant failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the creditors. The FAA upheld the addition as crucial documents, like NRI creditors' bank statements, were not provided.Conclusion:The Tribunal confirmed the FAA's order, finding the appellant's non-compliance with accounting standards and Act provisions. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify double disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The addition under section 68 was upheld due to the appellant's failure to provide essential documents. The appeal was partly allowed, with different grounds decided in favor and against the appellant.