Jurisdiction u/s 153C upheld; profit estimated u/s 145; disallowances u/s 14A, sales promo struck down; 80G allowed

ITAT Chennai upheld the AO's assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C, holding that a valid satisfaction note existed and that seized material and statements prima facie impacted the assessee's income; the assessee's jurisdictional objections were rejected. ITAT further confirmed rejection of books u/s 145 and estimation of profit at 10% of turnover for AYs 2020-21 to 2022-23. However, it sustained CIT(A)'s deletion of separate disallowances u/s 14A and on sales promotion expenses, holding that once income is estimated, further item-wise disallowances are impermissible. ITAT also affirmed CIT(A)'s allowance of deductions u/s 80G for donations to two registered entities, finding no credible evidence of bogus donations.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Validity of initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Act for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 based on seized material found in the case of a third party and the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer.

1.2 Whether additions on account of alleged bogus purchases of old bottles were to be made by disallowing the entire purchase value or by rejecting the books of account under section 145(3) and estimating profits, and the appropriateness of estimating net profit at 10% of turnover.

1.3 Whether, after rejection of books and estimation of income, separate disallowances under section 14A and in respect of sales promotion expenses could be sustained.

1.4 Whether disallowance of deduction under section 80G in respect of donations made to two registered charitable institutions was justified on the basis of search statements without corroborative material.

1.5 Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80GGB for AY 2018-19.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

2.1 Validity of proceedings under section 153C

2.1.1 Legal framework (as discussed): The Tribunal reiterated that recording of a proper satisfaction note is a jurisdictional pre-condition for issuance of notice under section 153C. The Assessing Officer of the "other person" must reach a satisfaction that the seized material handed over by the Assessing Officer of the searched person belongs to/pertains to/relates to such other person and is incriminating in nature, having a bearing on determination of total income. The satisfaction must be contemporaneously recorded and demonstrate a live nexus between seized material and the other person's income, in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision cited in the order (Singhad Technical Education Society).

2.1.2 Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the satisfaction note for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 and found that the Assessing Officer (i) linked specific seized documents from the premises of the third-party concern with the assessee, (ii) correlated documents year-wise with the relevant assessment years, and (iii) quantified amounts believed to have escaped assessment for each year. The note referred to loose sheets, excel sheets, ledgers and statements under section 132(4) of the key person of the third-party entity, evidencing bogus purchases of old bottles on behalf of the assessee. It held that the Assessing Officer had objectively analysed and compartmentalised the material, and the common satisfaction note still contained year-specific correlation and quantification. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the seized material was not incriminating or that the satisfaction was vague or mechanical. It further held that the later direct search on the assessee and subsequent reliance primarily on material found therein for making additions did not vitiate the earlier jurisdictional satisfaction already validly formed on the basis of material received from the third-party search.

2.1.3 Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the statutory pre-conditions for assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C were satisfied. The satisfaction note was valid and in conformity with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court; the proceedings under section 153C for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 were therefore upheld and the assessee's legal challenge was dismissed.

2.2 Treatment of alleged bogus old bottle purchases; rejection of books and estimation of profit

2.2.1 Legal framework (as discussed): The Tribunal proceeded on the basis of section 145(3) empowering rejection of books of account where they do not reflect true income and correct profits cannot be deduced, and consequent best-judgment assessment under section 144. It noted the statutory scheme under sections 29 and 30-43D and relied upon the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Empee Distilleries Ltd. on similar allegations of inflation of old bottle purchases in the same line of business, where disallowance of 10% of such purchases was approved as a reasonable estimate. Reference was also made (through the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reasoning adopted by the Tribunal) to various High Court decisions justifying rejection of books and estimation where stock/accounting records are defective or unreliable.

2.2.2 Interpretation and reasoning: On facts, the Tribunal noted that the pattern of reasoning by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present years was identical to that in the assessee's own case for AYs 2020-21 to 2022-23, already adjudicated by the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer had relied on seized electronic data (excel sheets describing old bottle purchases, "Others" column indicating commission, "Total" indicating cash to be returned), SAP records, absence of GRNs for certain purchases, and statements of key employees and suppliers, to treat all purchases without GRNs as bogus and to add the entire amounts. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that there were significant accounting discrepancies, particularly in handling SAP entries, offset accounts and documentation, and that the books did not reliably reflect true income. However, considering that (i) vendors were regular suppliers of genuine bottles, (ii) both regular and "emergency" purchases were debited to stock and reflected in production, (iii) no unaccounted assets or applications corresponding to the alleged bogus purchases had been found in extensive search operations, and (iv) the assessee's profit ratios were broadly in line with industry norms, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the books under section 145(3) and estimated profits at 10% of turnover instead of sustaining 100% disallowance of purchases. In the earlier order for AYs 2020-21 to 2022-23, the Tribunal had already held that accounting deficiencies and corroborated search statements may justify rejection of books and estimation but do not by themselves establish falsification of entries warranting addition of the entire purchase value. It also relied on Empee Distilleries Ltd. to approve a 10% disallowance/profit estimate in this industry.

2.2.3 Conclusions: Finding no change in facts or legal position from those considered for AYs 2020-21 to 2022-23, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s action in (i) rejecting the books of account under section 145(3) and (ii) estimating net profit at 10% of turnover for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20. The separate grounds of both the assessee and the Revenue on the issue of bogus old bottle purchases were dismissed.

2.3 Effect of estimation after rejection of books on separate disallowances under section 14A and sales promotion expenses

2.3.1 Legal framework (as discussed): The Tribunal referred to section 29 read with sections 30-43D, and to the principle that where income is estimated after rejection of books, such estimate substitutes the computation of business income under the normal provisions. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Indwell Constructions and the Allahabad High Court in Banwari Lal Banshidhar, which hold that once net profit is estimated, separate disallowances of individual expenditure items ordinarily cannot be made as all such items are deemed to have been taken into account in the estimation.

2.3.2 Interpretation and reasoning: The Revenue argued that, notwithstanding rejection of books and estimation of income, disallowances under section 14A and in respect of sales promotion expenses should be separately adjudicated and added over and above the estimated income. The Tribunal held that, once the books are rejected under section 145 and income is determined on an estimated basis under section 144, this estimated figure represents the business income after considering all underlying expenditure governed by sections 30-43D. It therefore considered that any further separate disallowance of particular expenditure heads would amount to double taxation of the same income and would be inconsistent with the case law cited.

2.3.3 Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s deletion of disallowances under section 14A and of sales promotion expenses, holding that such separate additions were impermissible after rejection of books and estimation of profits. The Revenue's grounds on these issues were dismissed.

2.4 Disallowance of deduction under section 80G in respect of donations

2.4.1 Legal framework (as discussed): The Tribunal proceeded on general principles governing allowability of deduction under section 80G for donations to institutions approved under that provision, and on the settled rule that additions/disallowances cannot be based solely on uncorroborated statements recorded during search. It referred to CBDT's Instruction (F. No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003) and judicial precedents (Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd., Harjeev Aggarwal) which hold that statements under section 132(4) without supporting evidence are insufficient to sustain additions.

2.4.2 Interpretation and reasoning: The Assessing Officer had disallowed deduction of Rs. 62,50,000 under section 80G in respect of donations aggregating Rs. 1,25,00,000 paid to two registered charitable entities, treating them as bogus solely on the basis of one employee's statement that (i) in the case of one donee, he "understood" that the donation might have been received back in cash, and (ii) in respect of the other, he merely confirmed payment by cheque for educational/CSR purposes. The Tribunal observed that (a) no incriminating documents or WhatsApp chats relating to these two specific donations were found in the search on the third party (from whom evidence of other bogus CSR contributions had been obtained), (b) no material was seized from the assessee suggesting that these donations had been routed back in cash, and (c) the relevant employee did not clearly admit that any part of these donations was actually received back in cash, and in respect of one donee his answers positively indicated that the payment was genuine and for educational purposes. The Tribunal held that the inference of bogus donation was drawn purely on assumption, without corroborative material, and that mere suspicion or tentative expression of "understanding" by an employee could not displace the legal effect of donation paid by cheque to institutions duly approved under section 80G.

2.4.3 Conclusions: The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 62,50,000 under section 80G, holding that both donations, made to registered institutions holding valid section 80G approval, were not shown by any cogent material to be bogus or to have been received back in cash. The Revenue's grounds on this issue were dismissed.

2.5 Deduction under section 80GGB

2.5.1 Interpretation and reasoning: The only issue was the assessee's eligibility for deduction under section 80GGB for AY 2018-19. At the hearing, the assessee's authorised representative expressly stated that this ground was not being pressed, given the smallness of the amount involved.

2.5.2 Conclusions: The Tribunal treated the ground challenging disallowance of deduction under section 80GGB as not pressed and dismissed it accordingly.

---