2016 (11) TMI 321 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on unexplained expenditure u/s 69C - Held that - The findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue in dispute in assessee s own case that not to make any separate addition on account of purchase or expenditure. The AO was instead directed to work out the peak from the entries from the cash books including bank transactions and make the additions accordingly are well reasoned and no interference is required. She has not accepted the claim of the assessee of having the purchases as genuine. She has provided the benefit of availability of funds on sale of the goods corresponding to unexplained purchases which is a judicious approach. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of orders dated 13.11.2013 and 18.11.2013 of CIT(A)-II, New Delhi for 2003-04 and 2004-05 AYs
2. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the IT Act
3. Deletion of addition on account of 50% disallowance of expenditure claimed by the assessee

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The Revenue challenged the correctness of the orders dated 13.11.2013 and 18.11.2013 of CIT(A)-II, New Delhi for 2003-04 and 2004-05 AYs on identical grounds. The parties agreed that the issues raised were the same in both years, originating from a search conducted on the assessee. The Ld.AR contended that previous ITAT orders favored the assessee on identical issues. The CIT DR, after reviewing the order, acknowledged that the points were covered, and the claim of the assessee regarding genuine purchases was not accepted. The ITAT found the facts and circumstances to be identical to previous cases and dismissed the departmental appeals.

Issue 2:
The search on the assessee's premises revealed discrepancies, leading to the AO questioning the genuineness of the purchases and expenses. The assessee's claim of dealing with tax-free goods and not filing sales tax returns was not substantiated with independent proof. The AO found discrepancies in the business activities, lack of bank account maintenance, and absence of company branding. Consequently, purchases were deemed bogus and treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C for both AYs. Additionally, 50% of claimed "Administrative and other Expenses" were disallowed in both years.

Issue 3:
The CIT(A) directed the AO not to make separate additions for purchases or expenditures but to determine the peak from cash book entries, including bank transactions, for additions. The Revenue appealed this decision before the ITAT, which found the CIT(A)'s reasoning sound and upheld the decision. The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A)'s approach of not accepting the genuineness of purchases but providing relief based on the availability of funds from the sale of goods corresponding to unexplained purchases. As the facts and circumstances were identical to previous cases, the departmental appeals were dismissed.

In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeals on the grounds of unexplained expenditure and disallowance of expenses, as the facts remained consistent with previous cases.