2014 (1) TMI 652 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on ad hoc basis - Cash payment made to various truck/tempo operators Compliance of provisions of section 194C of the Act Deduction of TDS Held that - The Assessing Officer made addition of 25% of the claim and in the first appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) restricted the disallowance to 10% of expenses being made in cash by the assessee but these ad hoc disallowances are based on surmises and conjectures - the ad hoc disallowance and addition cannot be made on the basis of hyper technical approach or imaginary observation - The Assessing Officer is bound to bring some element or material to substantiate the fact that the assessee has inflated its expenditure or there was some element of personal use pertaining to the amount claimed by the assessee as expenses. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and partly confirmed by the CIT (A) is not sustainable there is no valid reason to make ad hoc disallowance and addition only on the basis of imaginary allegation without substantiating the fact that there was some element of inflated claim or personal use by the assessee Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition on ad hoc basis out of cash payments made to truck/tempo operators.
2. Disallowance of expenses by Assessing Officer.
3. Restriction of disallowance by Commissioner of Income Tax(A).
4. Validity of ad hoc disallowance and addition.
5. Compliance with TDS provisions.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the addition made on an ad hoc basis out of cash payments to truck/tempo operators. The appellant, engaged in the supply of fresh vegetables and fruits, disclosed a gross loss for the year. The Assessing Officer disallowed 25% of total expenses, adding Rs. 10,62,191. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, restricting the disallowance to 10% of cash payments, amounting to Rs. 2,59,919.

2. The Assessing Officer's disallowance was based on lack of details for payments made, such as serial numbers on vouchers and driver names. The appellant argued compliance with TDS provisions and submitted that payments were below specified limits. The authorities observed discrepancies in the appellant's accounts due to a significant loss compared to the previous year's profit, attributing it to market conditions.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(A) restricted the disallowance to 10% of cash payments, citing irregularities in maintaining vouchers and lack of driver names. The appellant contended that the disallowance was based on conjectures and surmises, lacking substantive evidence of inflated expenses or personal use.

4. The Tribunal held that the ad hoc disallowance and addition lacked a factual basis and were made without concrete evidence of inflated expenses or personal use. Referring to a relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantiating allegations with material evidence. The Tribunal found no valid reason for the ad hoc disallowance and directed the deletion of the impugned addition.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's addition, partly confirmed by the CIT(A), was unsustainable due to the lack of substantiated allegations of inflated expenses or personal use. The Tribunal allowed the appellant's sole ground, directing the deletion of the impugned addition. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the impugned addition was ordered to be deleted.