Tribunal Partially Allows Appeal, Condoning Delay, Reducing Disallowance, and Dismissing Ground

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by condoning the delay in filing, deleting the addition under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, reducing the disallowance of freight inward expenses to 7.5%, and dismissing the unpressed ground regarding the closing balance difference.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Addition of Rs. 4,08,200/- under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Disallowance of Rs. 1,92,383/- out of freight inward expenses.
4. Addition of Rs. 15,014/- on account of difference in closing balance in the account of M/s. Usha International Ltd.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 49 days, citing the COVID-19 lockdown as the reason. The Tribunal found the reason satisfactory and condoned the delay. The respondent did not object to this condonation.

2. Addition of Rs. 4,08,200/- under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the distribution of agro machineries, received a "Special Redistributors' Incentive" of Rs. 4,08,200/- from M/s. Usha International Ltd. for purchasing a van for product promotion. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this incentive as business income under Section 28(iv) of the Act, arguing that it was a benefit arising from business activities. The assessee contended that the amount was a subsidy for purchasing the van and should be reduced from the cost of acquisition as per Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act.

The AO rejected this argument, stating that the incentive was a trading receipt linked to the assessee's sales performance. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing that the incentive was a business benefit, taxable under Section 28(iv).

Upon appeal, the Tribunal considered the specific purpose of the incentive and the subsequent purchase of the van. It concluded that the incentive was not a business benefit but a subsidy for asset acquisition, covered by Explanation 10 to Section 43(1). Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).

3. Disallowance of Rs. 1,92,383/- out of Freight Inward Expenses:
The AO disallowed 15% of the freight inward expenses amounting to Rs. 1,92,383/- due to unverifiable cash payments supported only by self-made vouchers. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal acknowledged the unverifiable nature of the expenses but found the 15% disallowance excessive. It reduced the disallowance to 7.5%, considering the nature of the assessee's business.

4. Addition of Rs. 15,014/- on Account of Difference in Closing Balance:
The assessee did not press this ground during the hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed this issue.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing, deleted the addition under Section 28(iv), reduced the disallowance of freight inward expenses to 7.5%, and dismissed the unpressed ground regarding the closing balance difference.

---