2024 (9) TMI 1654 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT allows wage deduction appeal, prevents double disallowance under section 153A assessment after proper reversal

M/s. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. Versus DCIT Central Circle-2 Coimbatore.

M/s. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. Versus DCIT Central Circle-2 Coimbatore. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction under Section 153A and validity of search assessment.2. Addition of income based on alleged bogus wages and salaries.3. Evidentiary value of seized materials and statements.4. Double addition of income and principles of fairness in taxation.5. Procedural fairness and principles of natural justice.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction under Section 153A and Validity of Search Assessment:The appellant challenged the jurisdiction assumed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the search assessment was completed without valid incriminating material and was passed out of time, rendering it invalid. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) rejected the legal arguments of the appellant, holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) could make regular additions with respect to any issue that comes to his notice during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal did not find any defect in the jurisdiction of the AO and dismissed the corresponding grounds raised by the appellant.2. Addition of Income Based on Alleged Bogus Wages and Salaries:The core issue was the disallowance of wages payable amounting to Rs. 62.75 Lacs and salaries payable amounting to Rs. 29.53 Lacs. The AO alleged that the appellant made provisions for wages and salaries to suppress profits, which were not genuine. The appellant contended that these were actual expenses incurred and were claimed on an actual payment basis in subsequent years. The Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed reversed the provisions in the return filed under Section 153A and claimed the expenses on an actual payment basis in subsequent years. It was concluded that the disallowance in both years would lead to double disallowance, which is unjustified. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 62.75 Lacs and Rs. 29.53 Lacs as expenses for the respective assessment years.3. Evidentiary Value of Seized Materials and Statements:The appellant argued that the loose sheets and statements relied upon by the lower authorities had no evidentiary value. The Tribunal observed that the Managing Director's admission during the search proceedings regarding the booking of bogus wages and salaries was a significant factor in the AO's decision. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the actual expenses incurred and paid through banking channels were evidenced by ledger extracts and reconciliations, which justified the appellant's claims.4. Double Addition of Income and Principles of Fairness in Taxation:The appellant contended that the original addition made in the hands of the firm would result in double addition, as the same income was assessed in the hands of individual partners. The Tribunal acknowledged this concern and highlighted the importance of fairness in taxation, ensuring that the appellant does not suffer double disallowance. The Tribunal's decision to allow the deductions was in line with these principles.5. Procedural Fairness and Principles of Natural Justice:The appellant argued that there was no effective opportunity granted before passing the impugned order, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal did not find substantial material arguments advanced on this ground and did not identify any procedural defects that warranted overturning the CIT(A)'s decision on these grounds.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal permitting deductions for wages and salaries payable, recognizing the appellant's reconciliation efforts and the reversal of provisions in subsequent years. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction of the AO and dismissed the legal grounds challenging the validity of the search assessment. The decision emphasized the importance of fairness in taxation and procedural justice, ensuring that the appellant was not subjected to double disallowance.