CIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S PUNEET UDYOG, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/70/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084836200904 August 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the ITAT were based on the appreciation of evidence. Regarding fuel and firewood expenses, the CIT(A) had found the claim supported by weighment slips and comprehensive record-keeping by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's counsel could not rebut these findings. Similarly, for inward and outward freight expenses, the CIT(A) had verified documentary evidence and found systematic record-keeping by the assessee to demonstrate business purpose. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue's counsel could not rebut these findings. Consequently, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad) appealed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) order dated August 8, 2008, concerning the Assessment Year 2001-02. The ITAT had upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO had disallowed a portion of fuel and firewood expenses amounting to Rs. 6,12,430 and inward and outward freight expenses amounting to Rs. 12,84,515. The assessee, M/s Puneet Udyog, is a soap manufacturer. The AO's disallowances were based on the alleged failure of the assessee to establish the genuineness and identity of suppliers for fuel/firewood and the absence of bills for freight expenses.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law proposed by the Revenue: 1. Whether the ITAT was right in law in upholding the deletion of Rs. 6,12,430/- in fuel and firewood expenses, given that the AO was unable to bring on record additional circumstances different from earlier years where such expenditure was accepted, and the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and identity of suppliers? (Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, implicitly relevant for establishing genuineness). 2. Without prejudice to question 1, whether the ITAT was right in confirming the deletion of Rs. 6,12,430/- in fuel and firewood expenses without considering that expenditure of each year must be established based on facts relevant to that specific year? (General principles of evidence and assessment). 3. Whether the ITAT was right in upholding the deletion of Rs. 12,84,515/- in inward and outward freight expenses solely relying on Goods Return Notes (GRNs) issued by transporters, when the AO made the addition due to the absence of bills for such expenses? (Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, implicitly relevant for establishing genuineness and substantiation of expenses). Revenue's contentions: For issue 1 & 2: The assessee failed to establish the genuineness and identity of suppliers for fuel and firewood expenses, and each year's expenditure must be established on its own facts. For issue 3: The AO made the addition because no bills were produced for freight expenses, and the ITAT relied solely on GRNs. Assessee's contentions: Not explicitly recorded in the provided text, but implied by the ITAT's findings that the assessee provided documentary evidence and maintained systematic records. Tribunal's findings (as stated in the judgment): For fuel and firewood expenses, the CIT(A) found the claim supported by weighment slips and that the assessee maintained comprehensive and proper records. The Revenue's counsel could not rebut these findings. For freight expenses, the CIT(A) verified documentary evidence and found that the assessee maintained a comprehensive and systematic record to show expenses were incurred for business purposes. The Revenue's counsel could not rebut these findings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA No. 70 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.8.2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ......Appellant Vs. M/s Puneet Udyog, Plot NO. 37E, Sector 6, Faridabad. ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel for revenue. Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)

1.

The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “F” New Delhi in ITA No. 3410/D/2006 for the Assessment Year 2001-02, proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law: (i)“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.ITAT is right in law in upholding the order of the Ld.CIT(AS) in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,12,430/- made by Assessing Officer out of total fuel and firewood expenses by holding that Assessing Officer was not able to bring on record any additional circumstances different from the earlier years -2- where such expenditure has been accepted and allowed disregarding the fact that the assessee has failed to establish the genuiness and identity of the concerned suppliers?” (ii) “ Without prejudice to question No.1, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT is right in law in confirming the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs..6,12, 430/- without considering the fact that expenditure of each year has to be established by the assessee and such establishment is to be based on facts relevant to that year only. (iii)“ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.ITAT is right in law in upholding the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.12,84,515/- made as a disallowance from inward and outward freight expenses solely relying on the GRN's (Goods Return Notes) issued by the transporters, whereas the Assessing Officer made the addition on the basis that no bills were produced for such expenses.?”

2.

The assessee is a soap manufacturer. The Assessing Officer -3- disallowed claim of the assessee on account of fuel and firewood expenses and also on account of inward and outward freight expenses. On appeal, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was ordered to be deleted and the said view was upheld by the Tribunal. On issue of fuel and firewood expenses, it was observed: “ However, the claim of the assessee for purchase of firewood was duly supported by documentary evidence in the form of weighment slips and on verification of such slips produced by the assessee before him, it was found by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has maintained a comprehensive and proper record regarding purchase of firewood. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld.DR has not been able to rebut/controvert this finding of fact as well as the other findings recorded by the Ld.CIT (A) while deleting the disallowance made by the AO out of firewood expenses and this being so as well as keeping in view all the facts of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue.”

-4- On issue of inward and outward freight expenses, it was observed: “ As clearly noted by the ld CIT(A) in his impugned order, this entire documentary evidence filed by the assessee before him was verified by the ld. CIT(A) and it was found by him on such verification that comprehensive and systematic record was maintained by the assessee to show that the freight expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. DR has not been able to rebut/controvert this finding of fact recorded by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order and this being so as well as having regard to all the facts ofd the case, we are of the view that the adhoc disallowance made by the AO out of freight expenses was not sustainable. In that view of the matter, we uphold the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) deleting the said disallowance and dismiss ground No.3 of the revenue's appeal.”

3.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

-5-

4.

The concurrent findings recorded by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal are based on appreciation of evidence.

5.

No substantial question of law arises.

6.

The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) August 4, 2009

JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? ........Yes/No

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →