2023 (9) TMI 1635 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Delhi rules customer deposits not taxable, allows inventory loss write-off; Sections 41(1), 41(2) not applicable.

The ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on two key issues. First, it directed the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer concerning ... Disallowance on account of deposit from customers - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the decision of A.Y 2010–11 [2023 (7) TMI 1150 - ITAT DELHI] as held that assessee has not claimed any trading liability. Containers and bottles are shown under the head “Current Assets” and deposits are shown as “Liabilities”. There is no evidence brought on record to show that liability has ceased to exist. In our considered view, the cessation of liability can only occur either by operation of law or debtors unequivocally declaring his intention to not honour his liability when payment is demanded by the creditor. Thus, we direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. The solitary grievance of the assessee is allowed. Disallowing expenditure incurred on inventory loss and leakages being 20% of the amount of expenditure debited to the profit and loss account - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:-We find that similar quarrel was considered by the co-ordinate bench in [2023 (7) TMI 1150 - ITAT DELHI] held write off of inventory is based on actual loss and not on estimation. Therefore, in our considered view, the ld. CIT(A) was correct in allowing the same as business expenditure. Decided against revenue. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi addresses the following core legal questions:Whether the disallowance on account of deposits from customers was justified under the applicable tax provisions.Whether the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, concerning disallowed expenditure incurred on inventory loss and leakages, was appropriate.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Disallowance on Account of Deposits from CustomersRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The primary legal provisions under consideration were sections 41(1), 41(2), and 43(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal referenced its prior decision in the assessee's case for the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11, which was decided in favor of the assessee.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that section 41(2) applies to depreciable assets owned by a power-generating undertaking, which did not apply to the assessee. Furthermore, section 41(1) requires two conditions for applicability: a deduction claimed for a trading liability in the previous year and the liability being written back in a subsequent year. Neither condition was met.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that containers and bottles were recorded as 'Current Assets' and deposits as 'Liabilities,' with no evidence of the liability ceasing to exist.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that neither section 41(1) nor section 41(2) applied, as the cessation of liability was not established by the revenue.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the revenue's arguments but found them unsubstantiated, relying on the precedent set in the assessee's favor for A.Y 2010-11.Conclusions: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition, allowing the assessee's appeal.Issue 2: Deletion of Addition on Account of Inventory Loss and LeakagesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal referred to its previous decision for A.Y 2010-11, where similar issues were adjudicated.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal recognized that the assessee's business involved manufacturing and distributing perishable non-alcoholic beverages, leading to inevitable inventory losses due to breakage and expiry.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the write-off of inventory was based on actual losses rather than estimates, amounting to Rs. 9,29,17,122/- for the year under consideration.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the inventory loss as a business expenditure, as it was actual and substantiated.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue's arguments were acknowledged but not found compelling enough to overturn the CIT(A)'s decision.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'We are of the considered view that section 41(2) of the Act was inserted W.E.F 1.04.1998 to provide for a levy of balancing charge in respect of certain depreciable assets... since the assessee is not a power generating company, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in applying provisions of Section 41(2) of the Act.'Core Principles Established: The cessation of liability under section 41(1) requires tangible evidence of the liability ceasing to exist, either by operation of law or through unequivocal declaration by the debtor.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal concerning the disallowance of customer deposits and dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of inventory loss and leakage disallowances.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment reaffirmed the principles regarding the application of sections 41(1) and 41(2) of the Income Tax Act and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow business expenditure related to actual inventory losses. The judgment reflects a consistent application of legal principles to the facts presented, with reliance on established precedents.