TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure in relation to the Income which is not includable in totals Income is not allowable? 2- Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing officer no account of unexplained creditors of Rs. 9,70,460/- without appreciating the facts that the AO rightly applied Section 41(1) of the IT Act ? 3- Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing officer on account excess Process Stock declared to the Bank without appreciating the facts that the Assessing officer rightly made addition on after finding difference in stock with the Bank with Rs. 12,58,580/- ? 4- Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing officer on account commission paid on sale without appreciating the facts that the assessee failed to justify the expenses of commission of Rs. 18,60,000/- claimed by the assessee? 5- Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act on 28.12.2016. The Assessing Officer (AO) while passing the assessment was order made a number of additions of the disallowances as mentioned on page no.35 & 36 of the assessment order. 3. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee was given substantial relief. The addition made by the AO and on appeal deleting / restricting the various additions are summarized in the following chart: Sr. No. Nature of Additions/disallowances Addition by A.O. Rs. Addition deleted/sustained by Ld.CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 1. Social Forestry Expenses Rs. 89,60,112/- Deleted to the extent of Rs. 85,38,112/- 2. Adjustment u/s. 145A of the I.T.Act Rs. 26,66,677/- Not under appeal 3. Adjustment u/s. 145A of the IT Act on opening stock (-) Rs. 1,24,34,215/- Not under appeal 4. Unexplained Creditors Rs. 9,70,460/- Deleted/allowed 5. Excess process stock declared to bank Rs. 12,58,580/- Deleted/allowed 6. Disallowance u/s. 14A of the I.T.Act Rs. 21,34,390/- Deleted/allowed 7. Disallowance on account of commission on sales Rs. 18,60,000/- Deleted/allowed 8. Disallowance on account of other ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these expenses were incurred on growing saplings of land / operation on growing sapling after removal from land in pots and polythine packs and after plucking them from ground planted in such pots is an integrated activities which is in conjunction with growing sapling on the land is agricultural expenses it has to be disallowed. As stated earlier this issue was first time arose in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2002-03 and after detailed discussion it was decided in favour of assessee. These principles were followed in appeal for subsequent year in A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 in order dated 04.11.2020. The ld.AR submits that order of Tribunal for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2010-11 to 2012-13 is laced on record, accordingly the ld.Counsel submits that the issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee. 8. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that he strongly relied upon the order of AO. 9. We have considered the contention of both the parties and gone through the order of the ld.CIT(A). We have noted that ld. CIT(A) while passing the order followed the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2002-03 dated 09.04.2009. We have further noted that by following the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered as agricultural expenses out of total claim of expense at Rs. 80.95 lacs and would not be allowed. Against this the assessee has shown sale of agricultural produce (relatable to growing of saplings through land) at Rs. 5.72 lacs and sale of saplings not relatable to agricultural operations at Rs. 1.42 lacs. Therefore, agricultural loss would be only Rs. 15.15 - 5.72 = 9.43 lacs. The sale of saplings at Rs. 1.42 lacs would be nonagricultural receipts and therefore cannot be allowed to be adjusted against agricultural expenses. So far as the depreciation of Rs. 4.32 lacs is concerned the same has been claimed on mist chambers other assets used in growing saplings through clonal routes which has been treated as non-agricultural operation in our discussion made in assessment year 2002-03 while disposing of similar ground. Thus, the disallowance is restricted to Rs. 9.43 lacs and accordingly assessee gets relief of Rs. 78.13 - 9.43) = Rs. 68.70 lacs." 2.1 In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that this issue now stood covered by several decisions of the Tribunal pronounced in the past and learned CIT(A) has simply followed one of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made of Rs. 5,14,850/- on account of unexplained creditors as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions with the creditors." 10.2 At the outset, we have been informed that on identical facts, the Tribunal in A.Y.2008-09 (supra) had held that there was no change in the facts of the case already considered in the past for A.Y. 2006- 07 and 2007-08 by the Tribunal. On the same lines for A.Y. 2008-09, the ITA No.511 & 634/Ahd/2013 J.K. Paper Ltd. Vs ITO A.Y. 2009- 10 Tribunal has decided the issues in favour of the assessee, relevant portion is reproduced below: "2.4 Ground No.4 is as under: "(4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Surat has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,95,000/- made on account of unexplained creditors without appreciating the fact the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon it to prove the genuineness of the creditors." 2.4.1 Regarding this issue, it was agreed by both the side that similar issue was raised by the revenue in earlier two years i.e. assessment year 2006....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year 2007-08 are rejected." 2.4.2 Since no difference in the fact could be pointed out by the ld. DR. in the present year also, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee by respectfully following the Tribunal order in earlier two years as per the relevant para reproduced above. Accordingly, this ground of the revenue is also rejected." 12. Considering the consistent decision of Tribunal on similar set of fact, we are in agreement with the submission of learned AR of the assessee that this ground of appeal is covered by the decision of Tribunal in earlier years. Hence, we affirms the order of ld CIT(A). No contrary facts or law is brought to our notice to take the other view. Respectfully following the same, the ground of appeal raised by revenue is dismissed." 14. Considering the consistent decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own case and following the principal of consistency and more over the Ld. CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee by following the order of Tribunal, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we affirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). In the result this ground of appeal is dismissed. 15. Gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be worked out. Stock in terms of quantity will be compared as on the same date. Thereafter, the difference if any will be valued at cost or market price whichever is low as per accounting policy followed by the assessee for valuation of stock. With these remarks we set aside this ground to the file of AO." 16. We have further noted that the assessing officer, while giving effect to the order of learned CIT(A), in his order dated 11th April 2014, deleted the entire addition. Considering the consistent decisions of Tribunal on similar set of fact in earlier years, we are in agreement with the submission of learned AR of the assessee that this ground of appeal is covered by the decision of Tribunal in earlier years. Hence, we affirms the order of ld CIT(A). No contrary facts or law is brought to our notice to take the other view. Respectfully following the same, this ground of appeal raised by revenue is dismissed." 18. Considering the consistent decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own case and following the principles of consistency and more over the Ld. CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee by following the order of Tribunal, therefore, we do not find any infirmity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of Tribunal, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we affirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). In the result this ground of appeal is dismissed. 23. Ground No.5 relates to deleting the addition made on account of Other Expenses of Rs. 1,88,35,000/-. The ld. Sr. Counsel for the Revenue submits that that ld. CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee by taking view that ad-hock disallowance by A.O. is not justified. The Ld. Sr Counsel further submits that in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011- 12, similar ground of appeal was dismissed in order dated 04.11.2020. Accordingly the ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the issue is also squarely covered in favour of assessee. 24. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that he strongly relied upon the order of AO. 25. We have considered the contention of both the parties and gone through the order of the ld. CIT(A). We have noted that ld. CIT(A) while passing the order followed the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2002-03 dated 09.04.2009. We have further noted that by following the order of Tribunal similar relief was granted to assessee in appeal for A.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther noted similar ground of appeal that raised by the revenue was dismissed by Tribunal in appeal for A.Y. 2010- 11 to 2012-13 by passing the following order : "31. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and perused the record carefully. We have noted that the assessing officer has not examined the details furnished by the assessee. The assessing officer has not find any defects in the books of account maintained by assessee. The assessing officer has not specified even a single discrepancy either in the documents or in the reply furnished by assessee. The learned CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee recorded that the assessing officer has not doubted that these expenses were not genuine. Even before us no contrary fact or law is shown to take other view except to raise the plea that the disallowances were made on reasonable basis. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by learned CIT(A), which we affirm. In the result this ground of appeal is also failed." 30. Considering the consistent view of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in appeal for AY 2010-11 to 2012-13 and following the principles of consistency ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- 11 to 2012-13 and thereby following the principles of consistency and by following the order of Tribunal, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). No contrary fact or law is brought to our notice to take other view. Hence, we affirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). In the result this ground of appeal is dismissed. 35. Ground No.8 relates to deleting the addition made on account of Non deduction of tax on foreign remittance of Rs. 42,36,591/-.The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee submits that ld.CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Toshoku Ltd (125 ITR 525 SC) and further Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 in order dated 04.11.2020 allowed similar relief to the assessee by dismissing the identical ground of appeal. The ld. Counsel accordingly submits that the issue is also squarely covered in favour of assessee. 36. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that he strongly relied upon the order of AO. 37. We have considered the contention of both the parties and gone through the orders of lower authorities. We have noted that ld.CIT(A) ....