Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing ground of appeal No. 1 the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in maintaining the disallowance of Rs. 5,252 made by the learned AO out of general expenses.

2. Ground No. (1) is general in nature and the same does not require any adjudication.

3. The facts of ground No. (2) are that the assessee filed its return of income on 7th Oct., 2002 declaring income of Rs. 2,78,470 from his business of manufacturing and trading of guwar gum, tamarind seeds and other herbal products. The assessee has declared GP rate of 11.65 per cent on total turnover of Rs. 18.18 crores as against GP rate of 12.63 per cent on turnover of Rs. 20.65 crores in the preceding asst. yr. i.e., asst. yr. 2001-02. The assessee has claimed generator running expenses at Rs. 46,32,581 as against Rs. 32,93,803 claimed in the immediately preceding assessment year. The AO found that the turnover has decreased but the generator running expenses have been increased. Keeping in view, these facts and these expenses were not fully vouched or partly vouched or supported by internal vouchers. The AO made a lump sum disallowance of Rs. 70,000 to cover up the element of unverifiable nature. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed this addition.

4. I have heard rival submissions and have perused the available materials on record, carefully.

5. It has been submitted by learned Authorised Representative Shri N.R. Mertia that it had processed 37.71 lakh kgs. of seeds as compared to 36.39 lakh kgs. seeds in the preceding asst. yr. 2001 02. This fact is also supported by the documents placed at page Nos. 8 and 10 of assessee's PB. The learned CIT(A) has given the reasoning that the turnover in this year has decreased in terms of money. But in our considered opinion, this is not a valid reasoning. The consumption of power may be obtained through the generator by the assessee or as pointed out from the supply of power by the State Government, which is directly, related to the quantity of seeds processed by the assessee. Admittedly and obviously the assessee has processed 37.71 lakh kgs. of seeds in this year as compared to the 36.39 lakh kgs. seeds in the preceding year. Therefore, consumption of electricity is definitely required more than the last year. The assessee keeps the generator set on stand by and it is not possible to prove on record that electrical supply was erratic during relevant year. I do not agree with learned CIT(A) that there cannot be any co-relation of generator expenses with the quantity of seeds processed. Rather, these are directly related to each other. The other important factor which has been pointed out by the learned Authorised Representative is that liability of Rs. 6,00,000 which included the generator running expenses was paid during relevant year and this was not the ease in the earlier year. The learned CIT(A) has considered this fact but still he had maintained the lump sum addition of Rs. 70,000. It is an admitted fact that the books of accounts of the assessee were not rejected and the production is more in this year. The small amounts of diesel expenses were not verifiable. The lump sum addition of Rs. 70,000 is not based on any logic. Therefore, legally it is not possible to sustain this addition as the two years are not comparable and the reasoning of the assessee are plausible. Therefore, this addition is hereby ordered to be deleted. As a result, this ground of appeal is allowed.