M/S COSMOPOLOTIAN TRADING CORP vs. I T O

ITA/338/2005HC RajasthanRJHC02041786200508 December 20165 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court addressed the third substantial question of law. The assessee's counsel rightly pointed out that the AO had disallowed Rs. 17,500/- for personal use of cars while calculating the total business income. Additionally, depreciation on three cars amounting to Rs. 1,55,980/- (which was later stated as Rs. 31,196/-) was deducted from income. The court agreed with the assessee that the disallowance of Rs. 17,500/- was already accounted for. Therefore, the total disallowance of Rs. 46,500/- should be reduced by this amount. The court held that the disallowance could not exceed Rs. 31,196/-. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, with the disallowance of Rs. 46,500/- being reduced from the total business income. The first two issues were not pressed by the appellant.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 1997-98 on October 27, 1997, declaring a taxable income of Rs. 25,020/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee, engaged in the business of precious and semi-precious stones, showed a consolidated turnover of Rs. 56,45,693/- with a Gross Profit (GP) of 43%. Separate trading accounts were prepared for imported rough stones, showing GPs of 13.75%, 11.78%, and 3.5% on turnovers of Rs. 48,62,892/-, Rs. 5,28,000/-, and Rs. 3,50,000/- respectively. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted a substantial capital balance of Rs. 1,65,36,885/- against unsecured loans of Rs. 5,30,89,641/-, and a low turnover relative to closing stock. Several expenses were claimed, including interest, dalali, postage, write-off, salary, and depreciation.

What were the issues?

The High Court was called upon to decide three substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining a trading addition of Rs. 1,41,000/-, considering the assessee's trading results were better than in the past and comparable to other traders, and had been accepted in previous years. (Assessee's contention: Trading results were favorable and accepted previously). 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 9,37,773/-, especially when it was satisfied that the loans were for business purposes, and on parity with the allowance of brokerage paid on similar funds. (Assessee's contention: Loans were for business purposes, and disallowance is perverse). 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in sustaining a double disallowance of depreciation on the same cars totaling Rs. 48,696/- (Rs. 17,500/- + Rs. 31,196/-). The assessee did not press the first two questions. For the third question, the assessee argued that the AO disallowed Rs. 17,500/- as depreciation on cars while estimating total business income, and separately deducted Rs. 31,196/- from income. The assessee contended that the Rs. 17,500/- disallowed should be deducted from the Rs. 46,500/- disallowance, leading to a reduced disallowance. The revenue did not record specific arguments on the third issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. DB INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.338/2005 M/s. Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation, Dhanraj Mahal, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan through Shri Harish Chandra Bader, Partner. Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(I), Jaipur, Having its office at New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circile, Bhagwandas Road, 'C' Scheme, Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan. DATE OF ORDER ::: 08.12.2016. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Mr. Muzaffar Iqbal, for the appellant. Mr. Anuroop Singhi, for the respondent.

By way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and partly allowed the appeal of the department.

The brief facts of the case are that return of income was filed by the assessee firm on 27th October, 1997 declaring taxable income of Rs.25,020/- for the A.Y.1997-98. The case was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) and notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee. In response, Shri N.K. Baid, AR attended alongwith Shri Satya Narain Jain, Accountant from time to time and furnished all the required particulars of income of the assessee firm and the case was discussed with them. The assessee is doing business of precious and sem-precious

2 stones by way of local sales and exports. During this year the assessee had shown gross profit of Rs.24,27,605/- on the consolidated turnover (consisting of export turnover of Rs.8,43,273/- and local turnover of Rs.48,02,320/-) of Rs.56,45,693/- giving GP of 43%. Besides such trading the assessee firm had also sold three consignments of imported rough as in the same form and prepared three different trading account in respect of such turnover lot wise. In the first lot gross profit of Rs.6,70,385/- was shown on the sales of Rs.48,62,892/- giving GP of 13.75%. In the second lot, the gross profit of Rs.62,219/- was shown on the turnover of Rs.5,28,000/- giving GP rate of 11.78% and the third lot gross profit of Rs.12,451/- was shown on the sales of Rs.3,50,000/- giving GP rate of 3.5%. On perusal of the P&L account it is seen that on the GP of 31,72,660/- net profit shown was Rs.57,162/-(However, after claiming depreciation as per I.T. Rules) and adding back the personal expenses, the net profit was worked out at Rs.25,020/-. Apparently this was very dismal performance keeping in view the magnitude of the business activities carried out by the assessee and also the capital employed by the partners in the firm. Accordingly the trading and P&L account were examined critically which revealed following peculiar facts: (1) As per balance sheet of the firm, the assessee had net capital balance of Rs 1,65,36,885/- in the name of its two partners (after adjusting debit balance of Rs.11,53,443/- shown in the name of Shri

3 Devender Kumar Badar). As against such capital balances, they had shown closing stocks of Rs. 1,90,48,407/-. The trade creditors were more by 10 lacs approximately as compared to trade debtors. Thus on face of the facts, there appeared no need for the assessee firm for obtaining unsecured loans of Rs 5,30,89,641/-. (2) The assessee had shown opening stocks of Rs 1,55,85,330/- and closing stocks of Rs 1,90,48,407/-. Against such huge stocks, the assessee could show total turnover (including export turnover of Rs 8,43,273/-) at Rs 56,45,593/-. Apparently the turnover as shown was rather negligible. In normal course and as per business parlance, normally turnover should be 4-5 times of such stocks, and only then the assessee could rotate its capital funds for the benefit of the firm. The lot wise turnover of rough stones not taken into account as these were sold in the same form after a short intrval. 6) In the P&L account the gross profit shown for Rs

31,72,660/-

wherein

the following expenses/allowances were claimed:- Interest Rs 14,06,660/- Dalali Rs 5,03,450/- Postage Rs 2,03,248/- write off Rs 2,39,878/-

4 Salary Rs 1,74,506/- Depreciation Rs 1,49,029/-

This Court while admitting the matter on 31.01.2006 framed the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining trading addition of Rs.1,41,000/- when the trading results are much better in comparison to the past, and in comparison to other traders and having been accepted all along even by the ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in past several years?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the issue on disallowance of interest at Rs.9,37,773/- when it was satisfied that loans raised were for business purposes, particularly when on parity of reasons the brokerage paid on the same funds were held allowable as business outgoing, the findings are perverse?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining double disallowance out of depreciation on same cars at Rs.17,500/- +31,196/- totaling Rs.48,696/-?”

Learned counsel for the appellant did not press the first two questions and however submitted that while estimating the total business income of the assessee, the AO disallowed sum of the expenses as personal and added a sum of Rs.46,500/ which included 17,500/- as depreciation. However, depreciation of three cars 17547+25579+112854=155980=31196 was deducted from income of Rs.20,24,903/-.

Therefore, it was contended that the depreciation of Rs.17,500/- of the cars on the previous heading which is disallowed is required to be deducted from 46,500/-.

We have heard Mr. Muzaffar Iqbal and Mr. Singhi.

In view of the fact, it is clear that the depreciation of the car item No.4, which read as under:- S.No. Head of expenses Shown Disallowed

Miscellaneous Rs.85,806/- Rs.15,000/-

Conveyance Rs. 46,794/- Rs. 9,000/-

Office Expenses Rs. 36,990/- Rs. 5,000/-

Depreciation on Car Rs. 1,11,193/- Rs. 17,500/- (22500-5000) Rs. 46,500/-

Therefore, learned counsel has rightly submitted that a sum of Rs.17,500/- for personal use was deducted while calculating the total business income of Rs. 18,62,420/-.

In that view of the matter, the issues are required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.

10.

The dis-allowance cannot be beyond Rs.31,196/-. The amount which was deducted Rs.17547/- if added to the income, therefore, under sub clause (c), disallowance of Rs.46,500/-, will now be reduced from total business income of Rs.20,24,903/-.

The appeal is allowed. (DINESH MEHTA), J. (K.S. JHAVERI), J. Asheesh Kr. Yadav 86

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →