INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI GOVINDAM AGRO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED , AHMEDABAD

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi dated 27.03.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19.

The issue involved in the above ground relates to addition made of outstanding loans amounting to Rs.1.06 Crores u/s.41(1) of the Act. The facts relating to the issue is that during assessment proceedings the AO noted that loans amounting to Rs.1,06,68,000/- were outstanding for more than three years and had neither been repaid nor any interest paid thereon. Further noting that the loan must have been used for working capital purposes and expenses claimed on account of same, he held that the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act were attracted which required trading liabilities incurred by the assessee which had seized to exist, to be treated as income of the assessee. Accordingly, he added the amount of outstanding unsecured loans of Rs.1.06 Crore to the income of the assessee invoking Section 41(1) of the Act.

The Ld. CIT(A), however, deleted the addition noting that the loans were not utilized for working capital purposes but in fact were utilized for incurring capital expenditure. He accordingly held that the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act did not apply [ITO vs. Shri Govindam Agro Foods Private Limited] A.Y. 2018-19 - 3 – and, therefore, in the facts of the present case, directed the deletion of addition made. The factual findings of the Ld.CIT(A) with regard to the unsecured loans having been utilized for the purpose of incurring capital expenditure and not for working capital purposes is contained at page 5 of his order as under:

Ld. DR before us relied on the order of the AO though he was unable to controvert the factual findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that the unsecured loans were not utilized for working capital purposes. In the light of the same and noting the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) to the effect that when the impugned loans of Rs.1.06 Crores were taken by the assessee company, no commercial activity had been commenced therein, it remains an uncontroverted fact that the impugned loans were utilized for capital purposes in the company and not for revenue purposes. Having noted so and [ITO vs. Shri Govindam Agro Foods Private Limited] A.Y. 2018-19 - 4 – also having noted the fact that the AO’s case for making addition on account of cessation of the impugned liability rested on the fact that these loans were utilized for working capital purposes, we see no reason to disagree with the Ld. CIT(A) that the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act did not apply in the present case when the basic fact on the basis of which the AO proceeded to apply Section 41(1) of the Act itself stood reversed i.e. the utilization of the loans for revenue purposes as noted by the AO which on the contrary was found to have been utilized for the capital purposes by the Ld. CIT(A) and which fact has remained undisturbed before us. In the light of the same, we find that there is no case made out by the Revenue before us against the deletion of addition made u/s. 41(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.1.06 Crore.

Ground of appeal No.1 is, therefore, dismissed.

The Ld. CIT(A), however, noted that the assessee had submitted various bills and vouchers alongwith copy of ledger account of the expenses to the AO who had completely ignored the same and noting so he found no basis with the AO to have made on ad hoc disallowance of expenses and, accordingly, directed deletion of the same.

Before us, the finding of fact recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee had submitted all bills and vouchers alongwith the ledger account of the expenses has remained uncontroverted by the Ld.DR. In the light of the same, we agree with the Ld. CIT(A) that the very basis with the AO for making an ad hoc disallowance of these expenses i.e. non-submission of details and evidences relating to these expenses, does not remain. Ld. CIT(A), therefore, we hold, has rightly directed the deletion of the ad hoc disallowance made by the AO.

Ground of appeal No.2, accordingly, is dismissed.

The issue involved in the above ground relates to the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs.1,08,93,739/- made by the AO by invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act noting that the expenses had been incurred in cash in excess of the limit specified for the same under the said Section. The Ld. CIT(A), however, noted that as a matter of fact that all the expenditures had been incurred through banking channels. His findings in this regard are contained at page 6 of the order as under:

Before us, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) of the impugned expense having been incurred by way of banking channels has remained uncontroverted by the Ld. DR. In view of the same, we find that the very basis with the AO for disallowing the impugned expenses on account of the same having been incurred in cash in excess of the limit specified u/s.40A(3) of the Act does not survive. We, therefore, see no reason to disagree with the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO had wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act in the facts of the present case. The order of the [ITO vs. Shri Govindam Agro Foods Private Limited] A.Y. 2018-19 - 7 – Ld. CIT(A), therefore, directing the deletion of addition made u/s.40A(3) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,08,93,739/- is upheld.

Ground of Appeal No.3 is dismissed.

The issue involved in the above ground relates to addition made of Rs.1,59,728/- u/s.28 of the Act on account of provision made for audit fees. The addition being made on account of no evidence being submitted by the assessee for the provisions so made. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the provisions for audit fees had been made as per accounting standard and that it was not a statutory provision which was required as per law to be paid before the date specified in law for claiming deduction under the Income Tax Act. The Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the contention of the assessee and directed the deletion of the disallowance made.

We have noted that before the AO the assessee had submitted that the provision of audit fees payable of Rs.1,20,000/- was not only in relation to the impugned year but also included provisions made in earlier years and were certified by the Auditors [ITO vs. Shri Govindam Agro Foods Private Limited] A.Y. 2018-19 - 8 – themselves who had signed the balance sheet. Considering the above contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we are in complete agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) that there was no occasion at all for disallowing provision for audit fees amounting to Rs.1,20,000/-. The genuineness of the expenditure was confirmed by the Auditors themselves who had signed the balance sheet and merely because it was outstanding for payment did not warrant any disallowance of the same. In view of the above, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of audit fees payable amounting to Rs.1,20,000/- is upheld.

Ground of Appeal No.4 is dismissed.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.