2024 (4) TMI 596 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue loses appeal as tribunal deletes additions under sections 68, 69C, and 69A citing miscalculated distances and legitimate expenditure

DCIT CIRCLE-2 (2), Mumbai Versus Bhisma Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd. And (Vice-Versa)

The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the revenue's appeal on three additions. Under section 68, the AO questioned sales to Sangeeta enterprises citing impossible ... Addition u/s 68 sales made by the assessee to M/s Sangeeta enterprises - distance between the factory of the assessee and destination of Sangeeta enterprises is 54 km and therefore in the timing that is provided in the invoices of dispatch of goods is not possible - argument in the decision of Unicot food products private limited [2023 (9) TMI 1458 - ITAT MUMBAI] which is raised before us by the learned departmental representative of goods transported from assessee to destination of Sangeeta enterprises in one lorry and at jet speed - HELD THAT:- We find that the distant shown by the learned departmental representative of 54 km however the learned authorised representative has shown that the distance has wrongly been calculated by the learned departmental representative by Google Maps taking the wrong destination. The correct destination is hardly 30 km away from the place of dispatch of goods to the destination of delivery of goods. Even otherwise, from the excise records of the assessee, the goods have been shown as dispatch to the Sangeeta enterprises and relevant quantity of goods are reduced from the stock. Such stock has been sold by Sangeeta enterprises and sales is assessed in the hence of Sangeeta enterprises. Even in the case of unicot food products private limited the dispute was with respect to the sales made by that entity to Samaira enterprises, the coordinate bench has upheld in favour of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any reason to deviate from the finding of the coordinate bench in that case. We confirm the order of the learned CIT – A deleting the addition. Addition u/s 69C - advertisement expenditure incurred by the assessee on video shooting of its product 'santoor' not recorded in the books of account of the assessee - HELD THAT:- As the product Santoor is owned by the assessee, marketed by the assessee and manufactured by the assessee naturally the expenditure is belonging to the assessee only. Thus, the argument that these expenses do not belong to the assessee is devoid of any merit. Also out of the total payment to be made of the expenditure of ₹ 28,222,000 the payment of ₹ 229 lakhs belongs to the period prior to 4/3/2014. Thus, the above payment, if at all made, does not belong to financial year 2014 – 2015. Thus, addition could not have been made for assessment year 2015 – 2016. Accordingly, the addition made by the learned AO under section 69C of the act and confirmed by the learned CIT – A is not sustainable and hence directed to be deleted. Addition u/s 69A - unexplained money - Loose papers found the learned assessing officer noted that during search - HELD THAT:- We find that the order of the learned CIT – A in case of Unicote for products private limited has travelled before the coordinate bench wherein [2023 (9) TMI 1458 - ITAT MUMBAI] as according to ld. AO, the entire cash sales reflected in the loose sheets pertain to the assessee when there are corresponding sales, which has been accounted in the books of M/s. Samaira Enterprises. If that premise of the AO is to be accepted then sale of M/s. Samaira Enterprises would be nil which cannot be the case, because this entity has shown sales and is assessed to tax since past. Thus, based on these documents and the ld. CIT (A) has given his elaborate finding for his conclusion and given direction to the ld. AO to verify and cross check, whether the sales adopted by him from the loose sheets appears in the cash book / bank book / sales of M/s. Samaira Enterprises or not and similar exercise to be undertaken with respect to expenses of the outgoing in the loose sheets seized and impounded in search proceedings. We do not find any reason to tinker with such a direction, which is based on the facts and material on record. Decided against revenue. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of additions u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.2. Deletion of additions u/s 69A and 69C of the Income Tax Act.3. Validity of satisfaction note without Document Identification Number (DIN).Summary:Issue 1: Deletion of Additions u/s 68 of the Income Tax ActThe appeals involved the deletion of additions made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, related to unaccounted sales allegedly made by Bhisma Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd. to Sangeeta Enterprises. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that these sales were bogus, citing lack of evidence such as lorry receipts and delivery challans. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, relying on a precedent set in the case of Unicot Food Products Pvt. Ltd., which was upheld by the ITAT. The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the sales were recorded in the books, and excise duties were paid, thus dismissing the AO's grounds.Issue 2: Deletion of Additions u/s 69A and 69C of the Income Tax ActThe AO made additions u/s 69A for unexplained money and u/s 69C for unexplained expenditure based on loose documents found during a search. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, following the decision in the case of Unicot Food Products Pvt. Ltd., where similar additions were made and later deleted by the ITAT. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that the AO failed to substantiate the additions with concrete evidence.Issue 3: Validity of Satisfaction Note Without Document Identification Number (DIN)The Assessee invoked Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, arguing that the satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C without a DIN was invalid, citing the Bombay High Court's decision in Ashok Commercials Enterprises. The ITAT dismissed this argument, stating that the satisfaction note was an internal communication and did not require a DIN as per Circular No. 19/2019.Conclusion:The ITAT dismissed all the appeals filed by the AO and upheld the orders of the CIT(A) for the respective assessment years. The additions made u/s 68, 69A, and 69C were deleted, and the argument regarding the invalidity of the satisfaction note without a DIN was rejected. The ITAT's decisions were based on precedents and the lack of substantial evidence provided by the AO.