2019 (3) TMI 803 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds Commissioner's decisions on tax issues, rules on foreign exchange & partnership deed

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–31 (3), Mumbai Versus Unique Gems & Jewellery

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–31 (3), Mumbai Versus Unique Gems & Jewellery - TMI Issues:1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 88,50,8332. Violation of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 19623. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 2,39,11,706 on account of salary and interest paid to the partnersIssue 1: Deletion of addition of Rs. 88,50,833The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 88,50,833 related to the difference in sundry debtors as per the statement submitted to the State Bank of India and the Balance Sheet. The Assessing Officer added back the amount due to the unexplained difference. The assessee explained that the difference was due to foreign exchange fluctuation not accounted for properly. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the Assessing Officer's approach lacking specific details and conducted a thorough examination. After detailed analysis, the Commissioner sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,40,95,257. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that no additional evidence was considered by the Commissioner and the factual findings were based on proper enquiry, rejecting the Revenue's claim of a rule 46A violation.Issue 2: Violation of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962The Revenue contended that the Commissioner considered additional evidence without following rule 46A. However, the Tribunal found that no new evidence was presented, only a revised working of foreign exchange fluctuation gain. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that a factual finding was made after conducting a proper enquiry based on the assessee's claim, not violating rule 46A.Issue 3: Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 2,39,11,706 on account of salary and interest paid to the partnersThe Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 2,39,11,706 related to salary and interest paid to partners. The Assessing Officer disallowed the payment based on the absence of the amended partnership deed during survey proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no legal requirement for mandatory registration of the partnership firm and accepted the amended partnership deed as valid. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings, noting that the interest and salary income had been declared by the partners before the survey operation, supporting the legitimacy of the claimed deductions.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decisions made by the Commissioner (Appeals) on all three issues.