2010 (8) TMI 60 - HC - Income Tax

Additions on account of unverifiable purchase - unexplained expenses - Held that - both the CIT(A) and ITAT deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. In fact the assessee had purchased raw material and also got the job work done from the same parties in both earlier and subsequent assessment years. The Assessing Officer in the subsequent Assessment Year of 2004-05 has accepted all these parties and transactions as genuine. Moreover both the CIT(A) and Tribunal have found that payments had been made to these parties through banking channels and tax had been deducted at source on the payments made towards job work charges - order of CIT(A) and ITAT maintained.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding addition of unverifiable purchases and unexplained expenses.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed challenging the Tribunal's order on the addition of ' 90,00,105/- for unverifiable purchases under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and ' 90,32,014/- for unexplained expenses under Section 68 for the Assessment Year 2003-2004.

2. The Revenue's counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer. She emphasized that the assessee failed to provide PAN details and complete addresses of the parties involved, shifting the burden of proof to establish the genuineness of the transactions onto the assessee.

3. Despite the Revenue's contentions, a review of the case revealed that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal had overturned the Assessing Officer's additions. It was noted that the assessee had consistently engaged the same parties for raw material purchases and job work across multiple assessment years, with the subsequent year's Assessing Officer accepting these transactions as genuine. Furthermore, payments to these parties were made through banking channels with tax deductions at source for job work charges.

4. Given the consistent findings of the CIT(A) and Tribunal, it was concluded that the Tribunal's decision was fair and reasonable. The Court determined that no substantial question of law arose from the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the present appeal in limine.

This detailed analysis highlights the legal arguments, burden of proof considerations, evidentiary support, and the reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment's key aspects.