2022 (10) TMI 338 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Quashes Revenue Authority Additions: CIT(A) Order Appeal Success

M/s Tau Agro Sales Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO-Ward 3 (2), Ferozepur

M/s Tau Agro Sales Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO-Ward 3 (2), Ferozepur - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the CIT(A) order.2. Addition of Rs. 3,49,750/- out of interest expense.3. Addition of Rs. 4,16,256/- under section 40A(3).4. Addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of share application money.5. Disallowance of Rs. 32,995/- for telephone and car/scooter expenses.6. Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) for AY 2014-15.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the CIT(A) Order:The assessee did not press this ground during the hearing.2. Addition of Rs. 3,49,750/- out of Interest Expense:The AO reduced the interest rate on unsecured loans from 18% to 12%, comparing it with bank interest rates, and disallowed the balance 6% under section 36(1)(iii). The CIT(A) allowed 15% interest and disallowed 3%. The Tribunal found that the interest rate of 18% had been consistently accepted in previous assessments. The Tribunal cited judgments supporting the consistency principle and concluded that the disallowance was not justified. Therefore, the addition was quashed.3. Addition of Rs. 4,16,256/- under Section 40A(3):The AO disallowed cash payments for freight under section 40A(3). The assessee argued that the payments were made in a remote area without banking facilities, supported by additional evidence such as a Panchayat certificate. The Tribunal accepted the genuineness of the payments and ruled that they fell under the exception provided in Rule 6DD(j) of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal also noted that section 194C for TDS was not applicable as there was no contract. Hence, the addition was quashed.4. Addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on Account of Share Application Money:The AO added Rs. 10 lakhs as income, claiming it was not reflected in the tax audit report. The assessee provided additional evidence, including a Chartered Accountant's certificate acknowledging the error. The Tribunal emphasized that books of accounts are more reliable than the tax audit report for such matters. Since the loan was reflected in the ledger, the addition was quashed.5. Disallowance of Rs. 32,995/- for Telephone and Car/Scooter Expenses:The AO disallowed 1/5th of these expenses, considering them personal. The CIT(A) reduced this to 1/10th. The Tribunal found no specific defects pointed out by the revenue authorities and noted that these expenses were minimal (0.04% of sales). The Tribunal cited judgments supporting the allowance of business-related expenses under section 37 and concluded that the disallowance was unjustified. Hence, the addition was quashed.6. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) for AY 2014-15:The AO disallowed interest, claiming the funds were not used for business purposes. The assessee argued that the funds were advanced for purchasing goods and had sufficient own funds. The Tribunal found that the funds were used for business transactions and not for non-income bearing purposes. Therefore, section 36(1)(iii) was not applicable, and the addition was quashed.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed all the appeals, quashing the additions and disallowances made by the revenue authorities. The orders were pronounced in the open court on 22.09.2022.