2004 (9) TMI 289 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal for 1993-94 Taxes Partly Allowed with Section 80-IA Deductions Upheld

The appeal for the assessment year 1993-94 is partly allowed, with deductions under Section 80-IA being permitted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s ... - Issues Involved:1. Deduction claim under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act.2. Addition of Rs. 30,000 for the assessment year 1993-94.3. Disallowance of interest paid on interest-bearing loans for assessment years 1993-94 and 1995-96.4. Disallowance out of telephone expenses, conveyance expenses, and depreciation of vehicles for assessment years 1993-94, 1995-96, and 1996-97.5. Addition of Rs. 60,000 as unaccounted stock for assessment year 1995-96.6. Addition of Rs. 55,000 based on entries on loose papers for assessment year 1995-96.7. Addition of Rs. 2,85,500 for excess stock of raw material and short stock of finished goods for assessment year 1995-96.8. Disallowance of Rs. 6,657 out of repairing expenses for assessment year 1996-97.9. Charging of interest under a particular provision for assessment year 1996-97.Detailed Analysis:1. Deduction Claim under Section 80-IA:The assessee, operating a rolling mill and ship-breaking business, claimed deductions under Section 80-IA for the assessment years 1993-94, 1995-96, and 1996-97. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected these claims, but the CIT(A) allowed them. The Revenue argued that ship-breaking does not qualify as manufacturing or producing an article or thing, citing the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation. However, the Tribunal decided to follow the Bombay High Court's favorable decision in Ship Scrap Traders, as judicial propriety requires following the decision favorable to the assessee when there are conflicting decisions from non-jurisdictional High Courts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, allowing the deduction under Section 80-IA.2. Addition of Rs. 30,000 for Assessment Year 1993-94:The AO added Rs. 30,000 to the assessee's income, arguing that it should have been accounted for under the mercantile system of accounting. The CIT(A) directed the AO to tax the amount in the year of actual receipt. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the assessee should have accounted for the credit note of Rs. 30,000 in the relevant year, irrespective of its actual receipt.3. Disallowance of Interest Paid on Interest-Bearing Loans:The AO disallowed interest payments, claiming that the assessee had advanced interest-free loans to partners/family members. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, finding no nexus between the interest-free loans given and the interest-bearing loans taken. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order for both assessment years, noting the lack of evidence to dispute the CIT(A)'s factual findings.4. Disallowance out of Telephone Expenses, Conveyance Expenses, and Depreciation of Vehicles:The CIT(A) deleted the disallowances, stating that no such disallowances were proposed when action under Section 147 was initiated. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that only income that has escaped assessment should be brought to tax under Section 147, and no disallowances for non-business expenses should be made.5. Addition of Rs. 60,000 as Unaccounted Stock:During a search, stock worth Rs. 60,000 found at a godown was added to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding it against the principles of natural justice as the Revenue did not verify the assessee's claim. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the lack of dispute from the Revenue.6. Addition of Rs. 55,000 Based on Entries on Loose Papers:The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim that the entries related to security furnished to Customs and Central Excise and to delete the addition if verified. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grievance, as the AO was directed to act based on verification.7. Addition of Rs. 2,85,500 for Excess Stock and Short Stock:The AO made additions based on an ADIT report without actual weighment. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of actual weighment despite the assessee's requests. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, citing the absence of contrary material from the Revenue.8. Disallowance of Rs. 6,657 out of Repairing Expenses:The AO disallowed 10% of repairing and maintenance expenses for lack of external vouchers. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, finding the expenses supported by internal vouchers and incurred for business expediency. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.9. Charging of Interest under a Particular Provision:The CIT(A) cancelled the interest charged by the AO, noting the absence of a specific order for charging interest under a particular provision. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision.Conclusion:The appeal for the assessment year 1993-94 is partly allowed, and all other appeals are dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders on most grounds, emphasizing judicial propriety, the need for verification, and the principle of following decisions favorable to the assessee in cases of conflicting High Court decisions.