2014 (2) TMI 460 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance out of business maintenance expenses Held that - 1/3 portion of the properties at Lucknow and Moradabad were let out, therefore, the income from house property is to be computed with respect to the said 1/3 property let out to different tenants and while allowing standard deduction as per clause (a) of section 24 of the Act, 30% of the annual value is required to be deducted - no other maintenance expenses are allowed to be deducted as there is no specific provision in this regard in the Act the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed 1/3 of maintenance expenses claimed by the assessee while computing deduction under section 24 of the Act the assessee could not place any relevant material on record, according to which the assessee can claim maintenance expenses besides standard deductions envisaged under section 24 of the Act while computing the income from house property there was force in the observations of the CIT(A) that the entire expenditures need to be disallowed while confirming the disallowance. Disallowance claimed as bad debts Held that - The CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance following the disallowance made in assessment year and nothing has been placed on record as to what has happened to the said disallowance - Whether it was challenged before the appellate authorities or it was accepted by the assessee as per advice of the RBI provision of the investment is possible during the first three years - its provision cannot be allowed without any further instruction of the RBI - The assessee has claimed provision during the assessment year without any advice of the RBI against the provisions of the Income-tax Act - the claim raised by the assessee is not in accordance with the law and the CIT(A) is justified in disallowing the same the order of the CIT(A) upheld Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of building maintenance expenses.
2. Disallowance of bad debts claimed in respect of investment with City Cooperative Bank.
3. Adjustment of advance tax paid against assessed income and consequential interest under sections 234B and 234C.
4. Alleged denial of proper opportunity to the appellant, contravening principles of natural justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Building Maintenance Expenses:
The appellant contested the disallowance of Rs. 64,497 out of building maintenance expenses. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had let out approximately 1/3 of its premises and claimed a deduction under section 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO disallowed the maintenance expenses, considering it a double deduction. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the disallowance, stating that the entire claimed amount of Rs. 1,73,877 should be disallowed. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that as per sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Act, only a standard deduction of 30% of the annual value is permissible, and no additional maintenance expenses can be claimed.

2. Disallowance of Bad Debts Claimed:
The appellant claimed Rs. 1,17,60,000 as bad debts under the head "Investment Depreciation Reserve" for an investment with City Cooperative Bank. The AO disallowed the claim, referencing previous disallowances in assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, and noted that the investment was against the rules of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, following his previous orders. The Tribunal noted the appellant's failure to provide updates on the status of previous years' disallowances and observed that the provision for the bad debt should have been made within the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07, as per RBI's advice. Since the provision was made in the assessment year 2008-09 without RBI's direction, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance.

3. Adjustment of Advance Tax Paid and Interest under Sections 234B and 234C:
The appellant argued that the advance tax paid on 30th October 2007 was not adjusted against the assessed income, resulting in excess interest charged under sections 234B and 234C. The Tribunal noted that no arguments were raised during the hearing, and the issue of chargeability of interest is consequential in nature, requiring no independent adjudication. Thus, this ground was dismissed.

4. Alleged Denial of Proper Opportunity:
The appellant claimed that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper or sufficient opportunity to comply with the reasons relied upon in passing the order, contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play. However, this issue was not separately addressed in the detailed analysis, implying that the Tribunal did not find merit in this contention.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the disallowances made by the CIT(A) and upholding the chargeability of interest under sections 234B and 234C as consequential. The judgment emphasized adherence to statutory provisions and guidelines issued by the RBI, rejecting claims made without proper substantiation or beyond the permissible time frame.