Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Cenzer Industries Ltd. Versus The Income Tax Officer & Others

2016 (5) TMI 400 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Allowability of business expenditure u/s 37 - Held that:- Since no expenditure was incurred in respect of purchase of gold coins and therefore expenditure could not be allowed under Section 37(1) of the Act - Decided against assessee - Income Tax Appeal No. 2193 of 2013 - Dated:- 2-5-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And A. K. Menon, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Tralshawala with Mr. Vishnu Hadade For the Respondents : Ms. S. V. Bharucha ORDER P. C. 1. This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, whether the Tribunal was right in confirming the addition of ₹ 4,77,58,412/- as unexplained expenditure from undisclosed sources under Section 69C, without appreciating that this reimbursement was not debited to the profit and loss account ? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition law in rejecting the additional evidence c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and in the circumstances of the case and in law whether there was any material before the tribunal to confirm the addition of ₹ 4,77,58,412/- as unexplained expenditure without fully and properly discussing the various arguments made and affidavit submitted ? Although the above questions have been raised the basic issue which arises for our consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal was justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 4.77 crores to det .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 9.53 crores. The appellant explained that in its activity of trading in mobiles had received contribution from M/s. Sagem France , M/s. Palmone Asia Pacific Ltd. and from M/s. Japan CBN aggregating to ₹ 7.72 crores. The appellant pointed out that the above reimbursement had been deducted and it had claimed only an amount of ₹ 1.80 crores which was reflected in the Profit and Loss account under Schedule 12 as selling and distribution expenses. The Assessing Officer on conside .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

#39;s income. 4. Being aggrieved the appellant carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the hearing before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the appellant produced additional evidence and submitted the details of selling and distribution expenses as under : Accounting Head Gross Reimbursement (Rs.) Net (Dr. to P & L A/c.) (Rs.) Adverisement 8,38,54,861 7,71,04,074 67,50,887 Sales Promotion 2,82,418 1,30,981 1,51,437 Commission 28,41,650 - 28,14, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 4.77 crores on account of gold coins is to be treated as expenditure incurred for purposes of business. The appellant in response to the same pointed out that the gold coins were purchased from one M/s. Opal Industries a sole proprietary concern of Mr. Subhash Gujar with motive of increasing sales of mobile handset as these gold coins were inserted in mobile handset on random basis so as to motivate the purchase of the same. In support the bills which were produced did not inspire confi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rietor of Opal Industries having PAN ABFPG7251F has not filed any income tax returns for M/s. Opal Industries. (iii) Mr. Subhash P. Gujar stated in his statement recorded on oath that a single transaction of purchase and sale of Gold Bars was done either in Financial Year 2004-05 or 2005-06. (iv) He could not give any documentary evidences like purchase/sale bills, delivery challans, transport receipts etc. He could not tell the name of the parties from whom the gold bars were purchased and to w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and reports of the LAO and the counter comments given by the appellant, the following points emerge for consideration :- • Purchase of Gold from Opal Industries who is into manufacturing of wall clocks. • Opal industries did not have any knowledge of dealing in gold. • Cenzer carried out transactions in gold worth ₹ 4.77 crores with Shri Subhash Gujar of Opal Industries without ascertaining his creditworthiness. • It was a one time transaction of gold of Opal Industries .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dustries is of unsound mind, is totally baseless. • The Director of Cenzer knew the proprietor of Opal Industries for the past 15 years. • The Director of Cenzer also knew the Director of M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Bullion Ltd. both from the same native place. • M/s Riddhi Siddhi Bullion Ltd. sold gold bars to Opal and Opal Industries sold the same in form of gold coins to Cenzer. Opal Industries did not have expertise in coversion of gold bars to gold coins. • Opal Industries sold g .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ull; On the three transactions of gold, Opal Industries has earned a profit of .011% on the sale proceeds which do not even include gold conversion charges. No prudent businessman would opt for such a low profit margin for a one time transaction. • None of the invoices are signed by the person who has taken hand delivery of gold. • During the Statement recorded on Oath, Director of Cenzer did not remember the person who had taken hand delivery of three high value consignments. • N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a single customer who won any gold coin under the scheme. In the above view disallowance of ₹ 8.77 crores was reduced to ₹ 4.77 crores i.e. restricted only to the claim made for purchase of gold coins from M/s.Opal Industries. This on the ground that the appellant has not been able to establish that the expenditure was incurred for the purchase of gold, therefore not for purpose of business. Thus it held that the benefit of Section 37(1) of the Act cannot be granted. 7. Being aggriev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellant. However, the Tribunal examined affidavit of Mr. Subhash Gujar and inter alia found the same not to be believable for more than one reason. Amongst them was the fact that the affidavit itself states that it is impractical and impossible to remember as to how the delivery of gold bars was taken or gold coins were given . Moreover, the Tribunal also came to the conclusion that no reliance can be placed on this affidavit in view of the averments made therein. It also notices the fact that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enditure to that extent was allowed. However it found there was not a single advertisement on record which would indicate that the gold coins were being inserted into the mobiles being sold by it except photocopies of advertisement placed on record of Jeeto India offer without mentioning size and/or quantity of the gold coins. Further the Tribunal holds that if the appellant wanted to launch a gold coin scheme as proposed it would propagate the same by advertisement, press report etc to make it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rd as a part of additional evidence. Further the impugned order also records the contention that gold coins of 20 gms was inserted in a handset is not acceptable for the simple reason that insertion of 20 gms gold coin in a handset which weighs about 100 gms would make it easily identifiable/distinguishable from a handset that does not contain a gold coin. This by itself may result in the handset not being put up for sale. This is more so when a new handset itself cost ₹ 2,500/- to ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e. This issue is being raised by the appellant for the first time before us as no such contention was raised/urged before the Tribunal. The issue before the authorities under the Act including the Tribunal was restricted to allowability of this deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. In fact the appellant had also filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking to rectify the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 12th May, 2013. In the Miscellaneous Application also there is no mention of any submiss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise in Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006 rendered on 2nd September, 2015 in support of his proposition that in case the revenue was relying upon statement of Shri Subhash Gujar, Proprietor of M/s.Opal Industries then the least that should have been given to the appellant was personal hearing. Thus this not having been done renders the orders not sustainable. We find that in the present case the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version