Pasupati Fabrics Ltd., New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

ITA NO. 1035/Del/2010

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "F", NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1035/Del/2010 A.Y. : 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner of VS. M/s Pasupati Fabrics Income Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-09, D-20, Connaught New Delhi Place, Room No. 357, ARA New Delhi (PAN: AAACP1338B) Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Department by : Sh. Vikram Sahay, Sr. D.R. Assessee by : Sh. O.P. Mody, Adv.

Date of Hearing : 07-01-2015 Date of Order : 09-01-2015

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU : JM

The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 10/12/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, New Delhi on the following grounds:-

"1(a) On the facts and under the circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1.40 crore on the basis that the transactions with an entry provider had no revenue effect in this case.

1(b) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the

1 ITA NO. 1035/Del/2010

addition of Rs. 1.40 crore without fully appreciating the fact that the MD/Chairman of the assessee company, surrendered this amount of Rs. 1.40 crore as undisclosed income.

2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal."

2. The facts in brief are that the assessee company filed return of income declaring loss of Rs. 46,88,8401/- on 28.1.2006. It was further revised and declared NIL income. Statutory notices were sent and assessee's response were filed. After going through the facts records, AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and made the addition of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- and for doing so he observed as under:-

(i) Inspite of the fact that assesses had been issued sale bill of Rs. 1.4 crore and on 24.6.2005, the assese has failed to take any legal steps for recovery, as claimed by assessee in his reply.

(ii) The assessee has made payment against the sale bill through six different cheques issued between 1.7.2005 to 13.7.2005 on which TDS has been deducted.

(iii) It is only due to survey in this case that assessee has come up with excuse that the payment was made as advance and no goods have been delivered. In fact the sale bill was alleged sale of Rs. 1.40 crore is treated as accommodation entry taken by the assessee from M/s B.T. Technet Ltd."

2 ITA NO. 1035/Del/2010

3. Against the order of the AO as aforesaid assessee filed an appeal before the Id. First Appellate Authority who vide impugned order dated 10/12/2009 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now the Revenue is aggrieved against the impugned order and filed the present appeal before us.

4. At the time of hearing Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal.

5. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority.

6. We have heard the both parties and perused the relevant record available with us specially the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Authorities and we are of the considered view that Ld. First Appellate Authority has concluded the finding on the issue in dispute in para nos. 3.3 to 3.3.2 of the impugned order and for the sake of convenience we reproduce the same as under:-

"3.3 I have considered the facts of the case. It is seen that AO has only tried to justify in this order his stand that the invoice of Rs. 1.40 crores from M/s B.T.Technet Ltd to the appellant is in the nature of accommodation entry based on the statement of Sh. S.K.Gupta. Though he has not been able to rebut totally the claim of the appellant that in its. case it is not the case of accommodation entry but there was a real transaction, but even if an invoice is established to be in the nature of accommodation entry, straightway it cannot be

3 ITA NO. 1035/Del/2010

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. It has to be seen as to whether this amount has been claimed as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure by the assessee. If it is claimed as revenue expenditure and debited in the profit and loss account then it may be considered for disallowance. If claimed as capital expenditure then it is to be seen as to whether the same has been capitalised or not during the year and if capitalised then claim of depreciation on such capitalisation only is liable to be disallowed. The AO has totally missed this aspect in this order. As reproduced in Para 3.1.2. of this order, in the statement of Accounts Manager, it has been clearly mentioned that this amount has not , been passed through the books of accounts. At the time of survey it was clearly noted by the I.T. Authority conducting survey that the amount of RS.1,40,00,000/- was not reflected in the books of account although the cheque payment has been made by the appellant company. This fact has been mentioned by the AO in the order itself. Time and again it has been reiterated by the appellant, its Accounts Manager and it's Chairman/MD during the time of survey and during assessment proceedings also that the payment under reference made to B.T.Technet Ltd is advance only. This clearly means that the same has not been debited in the profit and loss account. (From perusal of the assessment order it appears that AO has not bothered to see the P&L account and b/s of the appellant.) Even final printed balance sheet has also been produced before the undersigned and on going through the P&L account, it is seen that amount of Rs. 1.40 crores has not been debited in the P&L account; rather the same has been shown as advance in the balance sheet and grouped 4 ITA NO. 1035/Del/2010

under the sub head 'Loans and advances' in the asset side. [Thus as per principle of accountancy also an amount which is appearing as advance could not have been debited in the P&L account.] Thus, though on the day of survey this invoice was not recorded in the books of the appellant company (the intention of the appellant might be to claim this sum as bogus expenditure but in view of the survey conducted by the department on 27.12.2006, in the final books of accounts which is finalised as on 31;10.2007, this amount has not been claimed as an expenditure and therefore shown as advance) but subsequently when the books are finalised, the payment made against this invoice has been shown as advance. The reasons for the same may be the survey conducted by the Department, as observed by the AO [Para 3.1.7(iii) above] but the facts remains that this amount has not been debited in the P&L account; rather it has been directly shown as advance. (Based on this P&L Account and balance sheet the appellant has re- revised its return on 29th March 2008.) Therefore, an amount which has not been debited in the P&L account and therefore not claimed as expenditure cannot be disallowed even though the invoice may be in the nature of accommodation entry. Therefore without commenting on the correctness or otherwise of the conclusion of the AO that this invoice is in the nature of accommodation entry, the addition made by the AO. cannot be upheld.

3.3.1. It is also seen that this amount has not been capitalised also as if it is capitalised then it will not appear in the balance sheet as 'advances'. Even otherwise no addition is found in the schedule of fixed

5 ITA NO. 1035/Del/2010

assets during the year corresponding to this payment. Thus no depreciation has also been claimed. Thus there is no case of any disallowance of depreciation also.

3.3.2. Thus, in any way, there is no revenue effect in the case of the appellant based on this invoice. The addition so made by the AO is, therefore, directed to be deleted. "

7. After going through the aforesaid impugned order passed by the Id First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that First Appellate Authority considered the facts of the case and observed that AO has only tried to justify in this order his stand that the invoice of Rs. 1.40 crores from M/s B.T.Technet Ltd to the assessee is in the nature of accommodation entry based on the statement of Sh. S.K.Gupta. Though he has not been able to rebut totally the claim of the appellant that in its case it is not the case of accommodation entry but there was a real transaction, but even if an invoice is established to be in the nature of accommodation entry, straightway it cannot be disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. It has to be seen as to whether this amount has been claimed as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure by the assessee. If it is claimed as revenue expenditure and debited in the profit and loss account then it may be considered for disallowance. If claimed as capital expenditure then it is to be seen as to whether the same has been capitalised or not during the year and if capitalised then claim of depreciation on such capitalisation only is liable to be disallowed. We find that ld. CIT(A) has observed that the AO has totally missed this aspect in

6 ITA NO. 1035/Del/2010

this order. At the time of survey it was clearly noted by the I.T. Authority conducting survey that the amount of RS.1 ,40,00,000/- was not reflected in the books of account although the cheque payment has been made by the appellant company. This fact has been mentioned by the AO in the order itself. Time and again it has been reiterated by the appellant, its Accounts Manager and it's Chairman/MD during the time of survey and during assessment proceedings also that the payment under reference made to B.T.Technet Ltd is advance only. This clearly means that the same has not been debited in the profit and loss account. (From perusal of the assessment order it appears that AO has not bothered to see the P&L account and b/s of the appellant.) Even final printed balance sheet has also been produced before the undersigned and on going through the P&L account, it is seen that amount of Rs. 1.40 crores has not been debited in the P&L account; rather the same has been shown as advance in the balance sheet and grouped under the sub head 'Loans and advances' in the asset side. [Thus as per principle of accountancy also an amount which is appearing as advance could not have been debited in the P&L account.] Thus, though on the day of survey this invoice was not recorded in the books of the appellant company (the intention of the appellant might be to claim this sum as bogus expenditure but in view of the survey conducted by the department on 27.12.2006, in the final books of accounts which is finalised as on 31;10.2007, this amount has not been claimed as an expenditure and therefore shown as advance) but subsequently when the books are finalised, the payment made against this invoice has been shown as advance. The reasons for the same may be

7 ITA NO. 1035/Del/2010

the survey conducted by the Department, but the facts remains that this

amount has not been debited in the P&L account; rather it has been

directly shown as advance. (Based on this P&L Account and balance sheet

the appellant has re-revised its return on 29th March 2008.) Therefore,

an amount which has not been debited in the P&L account and therefore

not claimed as expenditure cannot be disallowed even though the invoice

may be in the nature of accommodation entry. Therefore without

commenting on the correctness or otherwise of the conclusion of the AO

that this invoice is in the nature of accommodation entry, the addition

made by the AO cannot be upheld. We further find that Ld. CIT(A) has

further observed that this amount has not been capitalised also as if it is

capitalised then it will not appear in the balance sheet as 'advances'. Even

otherwise no addition is found in the schedule of fixed assets during the

year corresponding to this payment. Thus no depreciation has also been

claimed. Thus there is no case of any disallowance of depreciation also.

We find that Ld. CIT(A) has observed that there is no revenue effect in the

case of the assessee based on this invoice. Therefore, he rightly held

that the addition so made by the AO is, therefore, directed to be deleted.

8 ITA NO. 1035/Del/2010

In view of the above, we are of the view that no interference is called for

in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, we uphold

the same by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.

8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09/01/2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

[S.V. MEHROTRA] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date 09/01/2015 "SRBHATNAGAR" Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches

9 ITA NO. 1035/Del/2010

10