2013 (7) TMI 62 - AT - Income Tax

Allowance of expenditure cessation of business of activity - CIT allowed allowance of expenditure to assessee Held that - Assessing Officer ignored the very fact that there was a temporary lull in the business of the assessee and it was not a cessation of business of activity Assessing Officer wrongly disallowed the expenses and made addition to the income of the assesse which was rightly deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) by passing the impugned order Following the decision of L. VE. Vairavan Chettiar Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras 1965 (4) TMI 6 - MADRAS High Court and Commissioner of Income Tax vs Anita Jain 2009 (1) TMI 774 - DELHI HIGH COURT Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowability of expenses incurred by the assessee after business activity ceased.
2. Interpretation of the expression 'for the purpose of business' in relation to expenses.
3. Disallowance of expenses on personnel despite business cessation.

Issue 1: Allowability of Expenses
The revenue appealed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(A)'s order allowing the expenses incurred by the assessee after the drillship had left Indian waters in April 2007. The Assessing Officer contended that with no business activity and the drill rig's absence, incurring expenses was unjustified. The revenue argued that the expenses were not fully verifiable and substantiated, justifying the disallowance. In response, the assessee's representative argued that there was a temporary lull, not a complete cessation of business. Citing legal precedents, the representative emphasized that expenses during a lull period are allowable. The Commissioner held in favor of the assessee, noting that business was temporarily slow, not ceased, and allowed the expenses.

Issue 2: Interpretation of 'For the Purpose of Business'
The revenue questioned the broader interpretation by the Commissioner of the expression 'for the purpose of business' compared to 'for the purpose of earning profits.' The Commissioner's decision was based on the temporary lull in business activities, allowing the expenses claimed by the assessee. Citing case laws, the Commissioner emphasized that during a lull, expenses are deductible as business losses. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the Assessing Officer overlooked the temporary nature of the business slowdown, leading to the wrongful disallowance of expenses.

Issue 3: Disallowance of Personnel Expenses
The revenue further contended that allowing expenses on personnel despite business cessation was erroneous. The Commissioner, supported by legal precedents, concluded that the business was not permanently abandoned but experiencing a temporary lull. The Tribunal concurred, stating that the subsequent resumption of substantial business activities by the assessee in later years indicated a temporary slowdown in the year under consideration. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision to allow the expenses and rejecting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the temporary nature of the business slowdown and the subsequent resumption of business activities. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's findings, dismissing the revenue's appeal and upholding the allowance of expenses during the lull period.