2025 (7) TMI 662 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Allahabad deletes additions for excess production and bogus purchases, restricts expense disallowances to 5%

The ITAT Allahabad ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple issues. The tribunal directed deletion of additions for excess production, accepting the ... Addition on account of excess production - yield percentage disclosed by the assessee -Allegation of suppressed production - HELD THAT:- In view of the foregoing discussion and respectfully following the aforesaid order of the Co-ordinate Bench of Allahabad Tribunal [2014 (8) TMI 827 - ITAT ALLAHABAD], we direct the Assessing Officer to accepted the yield percentage disclosed by the assessee in this assessment year. Accordingly, the relief given by the learned CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order dated 30/09/203 is sustained and the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) is deleted. In effect, the entire additio on account of excess production is directed to be deleted. Disallowance of alleged bogus purchase - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- The issue is already covered by order [2014 (8) TMI 827 - ITAT ALLAHABAD] in which in similar facts and circumstances, the additions on account of bogus purchases were deleted. No distinguishable facts and circumstances have been brought for our consideration to take a view different from the view taken supra. Relief given by the learned CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order dated 30/09/2013 is sustained and the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) is deleted. In effect, the entire addition on account of disallowance of alleged bogus purchase is directed to be deleted. Addition on extra sales - HELD THAT:- AO and CIT(A) have failed to make a case for the aforesaid addition on the basis of accounting principles and provisions of Income Tax Act. AO is directed to delete the aforesaid addition. Addition towards alleged bogus liability - HELD THAT:- CIT, D.R. expressed no objection to this. No distinguishable facts and circumstances or provisions of law have been brought to our attention by either side to distinguish the facts and circumstances of the present appeals before us, from the facts and circumstances in the aforesaid order dated 15/07/2024 of the Co-ordinate Bench of Allahabad Tribunal. In view of the foregoing and as representatives of both sides are in agreement with this, this issue is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo order on this specific issue in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and the Assessing Officer. Disallowances of entertainment expenses, telephone expenses, generator expenses, motor vehicle expenses and petrol expenses - HELD THAT:- Co-ordinate Bench of Allahabad Tribunal [2014 (8) TMI 827 - ITAT ALLAHABAD] reduced the disallowance to 5% of the total claim - CIT, D.R. left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. No distinguishable facts and circumstances or provisions of law have been brought to our attention by either side to distinguish the facts and circumstances of the present appeals before us, from the facts and circumstances in the aforesaid order, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance out of aforesaid heads of expenditure to 5% of the total claim. Disallowance of freight & cartage (outward) expenses - AO disallowed 25% out of the total claim observing that the assessee had failed to furnish the details of transporters, name and complete address of the transporters, agreement if any etc. - HELD THAT:- The basic fact in issue is in dispute, which has not been resolved by the learned CIT(A). While the AO alleges that the assessee did not provide details of these expenses; the assessee on the other hand claims that no query was made by the AO in respect of these expenses. As the factual matrix regarding this issue is not clear from our records, we restore this issue also back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to decide this issue afresh in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and to the Assessing Officer. The core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the validity and correctness of additions made to the assessee's income on account of alleged suppression of production, bogus purchases, extra sales, bogus liabilities, and disallowance of various business expenses in the context of a search and seizure operation under the Income Tax Act. The principal issues include:1. Whether the addition of Rs. 7,76,72,166/- on account of alleged suppression of production is justified, particularly in light of the assessee's declared yield percentage and prior years' accepted yields.2. Whether the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases from certain parties, notably M/s Cosmo Elmek and M/s Sarita Industries, is sustainable.3. Whether the addition of Rs. 3,58,05,157/- on account of alleged extra sales is justified based on the reconstructed trading account.4. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,17,90,328/- on account of alleged bogus liabilities is justified.5. Whether disallowances of various business expenses such as entertainment, telephone, generator, motor vehicle, petrol, and freight and cartage expenses are justified.6. The applicability and invocation of provisions under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act relating to rejection of books of account.7. The relevance and binding nature of excise and sales tax authorities' acceptance of the assessee's accounts and production.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis1. Addition on Account of Suppression of ProductionLegal Framework and Precedents: The Assessing Officer (AO) made a substantial addition alleging suppression of production based on an estimated yield percentage of 105.66% compared to the assessee's declared yield of approximately 83.17%. The AO's approach involved reconstructing production figures by analyzing raw material consumption, finished goods production, and work-in-progress quantities. The AO did not formally invoke section 145(3) but effectively rejected the books by disbelieving the declared yield and production figures. The assessee relied on prior assessments where the yield was accepted, the excise duty was duly paid, and no incriminating material was found during the search. The assessee also relied on judicial precedents emphasizing that income tax is leviable on real income computed on commercial principles and that estimation without rejection of books is impermissible.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed the manufacturing process of the product (Zarda) and noted the complexity and variability inherent in the process, including evaporation, wastage, and trade secrets regarding ingredient ratios. It was observed that the AO's calculations ignored these factors, leading to an inflated estimate of production. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's books were regularly audited, excise and sales tax authorities accepted the declared production and sales, and no adverse material was found during the search. The Tribunal further held that the AO misunderstood the yield percentage by applying it incorrectly to all raw materials rather than raw tobacco alone. The AO's approach was thus deemed arbitrary and based on surmises without tangible evidence.Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee produced detailed charts, audit reports, manufacturing process descriptions, and prior assessment orders where the yield was accepted. The AO's remand report acknowledged the presence of evaporation and wastage but still upheld the addition due to lack of item-wise wastage details. The Tribunal found this insufficient to sustain the addition.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal emphasized that rejection of books under section 145(3) requires specific findings and opportunity to the assessee, which were absent. The AO's failure to invoke section 145(3) formally was noted. The Tribunal applied principles from Supreme Court and High Court decisions that income tax is on real income, and estimation must be based on sound material. The acceptance of books and accounts by excise and sales tax authorities was given significant weight.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued the AO's estimate was justified due to lack of stage-wise consumption records and suspicious purchases. The assessee countered with consistent prior acceptance, lack of incriminating material, and the impracticality of providing trade secrets. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, noting the absence of concrete evidence and the need to respect consistency and commercial realities.Conclusions: The Tribunal deleted the entire addition on account of suppression of production for the assessment year under consideration and similarly allowed appeals for subsequent years by following a coordinate bench decision. It directed acceptance of the yield declared by the assessee.2. Addition on Account of Bogus PurchasesLegal Framework and Precedents: The AO disallowed purchases from parties such as M/s Cosmo Elmek and M/s Sarita Industries on the ground that transportation vehicles were not commercial or owners denied transporting goods, leading to inference of bogus purchases. The assessee submitted confirmations, PAN details, sales tax registrations, payment through demand drafts, and audit reports of the sellers. Prior years' assessments accepted these purchases.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on vehicle usage and owner statements without proper cross-examination or inquiry was insufficient to prove bogus purchases. The assessee's documentary evidence and confirmations were credible. The Tribunal noted the purchases were entered in books, payments were made through banking channels, and no material was found during search to disprove genuineness.Key Evidence and Findings: Copies of invoices, payment proofs, confirmations from sellers, and acceptance by sales tax authorities were key. The AO's suspicion based on vehicle usage was not supported by comprehensive investigation.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that mere suspicion or failure of transportation logistics does not establish bogus purchases. The burden to disprove genuineness was on the Revenue, which was not discharged.Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue's argument focused on transportation anomalies; the assessee emphasized documentary proof and prior acceptance. The Tribunal favored the latter.Conclusions: The Tribunal deleted the entire addition on account of bogus purchases for the years under appeal.3. Addition on Account of Extra SalesLegal Framework and Precedents: The AO reconstructed the trading account for part of the financial year and made an addition of Rs. 3,58,05,157/- alleging extra sales. The assessee argued that the trading account should be considered for the whole financial year and that a credit side difference cannot be treated as income.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the AO's truncated period approach was contrary to accounting principles and that the difference on the credit side cannot be income.Key Evidence and Findings: The reconstructed trading account and accounting principles were pivotal.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied fundamental accounting principles and the provisions of the Income Tax Act to reject the addition.Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue relied on AO and CIT(A) orders; assessee relied on accounting principles. The Tribunal sided with the assessee.Conclusions: The addition was deleted.4. Addition on Account of Bogus LiabilityLegal Framework and Precedents: The AO made an addition of Rs. 1,17,90,328/- alleging bogus liabilities. The assessee referred to a coordinate bench decision setting aside the issue for de novo consideration.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found no distinguishable facts to depart from the coordinate bench decision and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity to the assessee.Conclusions: Issue restored for reconsideration.5. Disallowance of Business ExpensesLegal Framework and Precedents: Disallowances were made for entertainment, telephone, generator, motor vehicle, petrol, and freight and cartage expenses.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had restricted such disallowances to 5% of total claim in similar circumstances. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict disallowance accordingly. Regarding freight and cartage expenses, due to unclear factual matrix, the issue was restored for fresh consideration.Conclusions: Disallowances restricted to 5%; freight issue restored.6. Rejection of Books of Account under Section 145(3)Legal Framework and Precedents: The AO did not formally reject books under section 145(3) but disbelieved the declared production and yield. The CIT(A) invoked powers under section 251 to reject books. The assessee contended that rejection without formal notice and opportunity violates principles of natural justice.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal held that rejection of books is a serious step requiring specific findings and opportunity. The AO's failure to invoke section 145(3) was noted. The CIT(A)'s use of powers without issuing show cause was questioned. The Tribunal emphasized that estimation of income must be based on sound material and not arbitrary assumptions.Conclusions: The rejection of books was not justified in the absence of proper procedure and evidence.7. Binding Nature of Excise and Sales Tax Authorities' AcceptanceLegal Framework and Precedents: The assessee's goods are excisable and subject to excise duty under strict supervision. Excise and sales tax authorities accepted the assessee's accounts and sales. The assessee relied on judicial precedents that such acceptance is binding on income tax authorities.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal accorded due weight to the acceptance by excise and sales tax authorities, noting that no suppression of excise duty or sales was found. This supported the assessee's contention against additions based on presumed suppressed production or sales.Conclusions: Acceptance by excise and sales tax authorities was a significant factor in deciding against the additions.Significant Holdings'Income tax is a tax on real income i.e. the profits arrived at on commercial principles subject to the provision of the income tax act.''No addition on account of suppression of sale can be made without any valid basis when the goods were excisable and correctness of the declared sales is supported by regular books of account, duly audited by the auditors.''The Assessing Officer is not bound to accept the system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee, the correctness of which had not been questioned in the past, but estimation without rejection of books is impermissible.''Mere suspicion or failure of transportation logistics does not establish bogus purchases; the burden to disprove genuineness lies on the Revenue.''Estimation of income should be fair and based on tangible material; arbitrary calculations or assumptions are not sustainable.''Acceptance of accounts and sales by excise and sales tax authorities is a relevant and binding factor in income tax assessment.''Rejection of books of account under section 145(3) requires specific findings and opportunity to the assessee.''Additions based on reconstructed trading accounts for truncated periods contrary to accounting principles are not sustainable.''Disallowances of business expenses should be reasonable and consistent with precedents; arbitrary disallowances are to be restricted.'Final Determinations1. The entire addition of Rs. 7,76,72,166/- on account of alleged suppression of production for the assessment year 2010-11 and subsequent years is deleted.2. The additions on account of alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 73,16,513/- are deleted.3. The addition of Rs. 3,58,05,157/- on account of extra sales is deleted.4. The issue of addition on account of bogus liabilities of Rs. 1,17,90,328/- is restored for fresh adjudication.5. Disallowances of various business expenses are restricted to 5% of the total claim; the issue of freight and cartage expenses is restored for fresh consideration.6. The books of account are not rejected under section 145(3) in the absence of proper procedure and evidence.7. The acceptance of accounts by excise and sales tax authorities is a significant factor against making additions.