Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. Ground No. 5 relates to expenses on celebrities for publicity and sales promotion. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that this issue is Parle Product Private Ltd also covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of Tribunal in assessee's subsidiary's case in CIT Vs Parle Biscuits Pvt Ltd. in ITA No. 3890/Mum/2007 for AY 2003-04. On the other hand the ld. DR supported the order of the AO.

19. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. We have noted that this ground of appeal is identical to the ground No. 5 in revenue's appeal for AY 2003-04 (supra), which we have already dismissed by following the assessee's group case. Hence, this ground of appeal is also dismissed with similar observation.

Parle Product Private Ltd

28. On appeal before CIT(A), the assessee stated that the assessee has not incurred any other expenses, except of Demat Charges of Rs.2,18,000/- for making investment in the shares, which is already disallowed by the assessee. No expenses can be attributed on estimated as per Rule 8D. The assessee also relied on a number of decisions of Tribunal and High Courts as recorded by ld CIT(A) in para 9.4 of his order. The assessee specifically relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce (ITA No. 626/2010), wherein it was held that the Rule 8D is applicable from AY 2008-09 and the expenses which have direct and indirect proximity with the earning the exempt income to be disallowed. The assessee also submitted that if the direct and indirect expenses are considered for disallowances, it would be Rs. 7,68,000/- only and that the assessee has already disallowed Rs. 2,18,000/-. The ld CIT(A) after considering he submission of the assessee concluded that the provision of Rule 8D is not applicable for the year under consideration, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Ltd. (supra). It was further held that disallowance can be made on a reasonable basis. The assessee has already offered Rs. 2,18,000/- as suo-moto disallowance related to Demat Charges attributable for earning tax free income. The ld. CIT(A) after relying upon the decision in assessee's subsidiary case of M/s Parle Product Private Ltd Parle Biscuits Ltd. for Assessment Year 2006-07 which was a subject matter before DRP, wherein DRP directed the Assessing Officer to allow only direct and indirect expenses which have proximity with the earning of exempt income. The ld CIT(A) further noted that the assessee has already added Rs. 2,18,000/- being suo-moto disallowance while computing taxable income. The indirect expenses consist salary of Accounts manager which is Rs. 3,25,229/-. The assessee has attributed that the Accounts manager has devoted 20% of his time in the investments activity hence, only 20% of his salary can be reasonably linked to the earning of exempt income. Further, the assessee has also suo-moto offered Rs. 50,000/- as other administrative expenses such as telephone, e-mail charges and any other charges. After considering all direct and indirect expenses the ld CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the reasonable disallowance under section 14A would be Rs. 550,000/-, in addition to the Demat charges of Rs. 218,000/-, and restricted the disallowance to that extent only. In our view the ld CIT(A) made reasonable disallowance under section 14A, which do not require any interference. Accordingly, the order passed by ld. CIT(A) on ground no.5 of the appeal is affirmed. In the result, the ground no.5 of the appeal is dismissed.

Parle Product Private Ltd

29. In the result, the ground No. 4& 5 of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

30. The sole issue in this revenue's appeal that remained to be adjudicated is Ground No.4, which relates to deletion of addition of Rs.99,846/- made on account of bogus purchases.

31. The ld.AR of the assessee, at the outset submits that the assessing officer has made addition merely because the assessee- company could not produce the party before him for confirmation and the name of the concerned party was appearing in the list of parties of hawala traders prepared by the investigation wing of the Sales tax department of State Government. The said hawala dealers were allegedly indulging in the practice of providing the bogus purchase bills. The assessee has contended that the transaction was genuine and submitted evidences such as copy of the invoices, invoice number, inward register number, ledger account, payment of invoices by cheque, etc. The Ld. AR further submits that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom), wherein it has been held that since sale supported the purchases made by the assessee and the payments were also made through banks, Parle Product Private Ltd the purchase could not be rejected as bogus merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the assessing officer. Also that, Special Leave Petition filed by the department against the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 30th August, 2013 in SLP (Civil) No.14828/2013). The Ld.AR further placed his reliance on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DC IT Vs Rajeev G Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mumbai Trib).

34. On appeal before ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the transaction with Lakshmi Trading Co were genuine. The assessee furnished all the detail required by assessing officer to prove the genuineness of transaction, transaction date, bills/ invoices, delivery challan, in outward and inward entry evidencing the delivery of goods Parle Product Private Ltd and the payments through cheques. The learned CIT (A) after considering the contention of assessee concluded that the assessee produced relevant documents about the transaction. The payments were made through account payee cheques. The bank statement reflects that payment was made to the said party. The assessee is a reputed company and having turnover in several hundred Crores, whereas the amount in dispute is below the ₹ 1 lakh only. The assessee has shown income of more than Rs. 46 crore. It was further concluded that it is not convincing that the assessee would procure such bogus bill of Rs.99,846/- only. The learned CIT(A) also concluded that the selling party, after collection of VAT may not have deposited it with the Government Treasury, which may leads to treat the said party as hawala traders. It was concluded by ld CIT(A) that the assessing officer has not made any consequential enquiries; whether any money has been received back by the assessee or not. We have noted that the assessing officer has not rejected the books of account of the assessee. The learned assessing officer is not disputed the consumption of the material purchased by assessee. The assessing officer without making any independent enquiry disallowed entire purchases from Lakshmi Trading Company. The learned CIT(A) the entire addition after considering the material placed before him. In view of the detailed and Parle Product Private Ltd reasoned order passed by learned CIT(A), we do not find any reason to deviate from it, which we affirms . In the result this ground No. 4 of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed and the detailed appeal of the assessee is dismissed.