2014 (3) TMI 16 - AT - Income Tax

Reduction of disallowance made from salary expenses Held that - The Assessing Officer did not express any doubt about the genuineness of expenses claimed The contention of the assessee is accepted that the branches were spread mostly in Tamilnadu, the assessee had to employ persons hailing from Tamilnadu - the Assessing Officer has not doubt about the genuineness of the salary payment, even though he made certain observations about the nativity of the employees - there is no finding that the salaries were paid to related persons - the Assessing Officer has pointed out the deficiencies in the vouchers, yet the Assessing Officer did not take any step to prove that the vouchers were bogus - the issue under consideration is only that of an estimate for possible deficiencies thus, there is no reason to interfere in the decision of CIT(A) Decided against Revenue. Disallowance of agents incentive expenses u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act Held that - The section does not provide for automatic disallowance of the claim for deduction of payments made to the persons specified in section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, as assumed by the Assessing Officer - The Assessing Officer is required to form an opinion that the said expenditure is excessive or unreasonable - the Assessing Officer has failed to prove that the concerns M/s. Systematic Associates and M/s. Image Associates are related parries as defined under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act - the view entertained by the Assessing Officer that the payments made to related parties and claimed as expenditure is required to be disallowed under section 40A(2)(a) is not the correct view - the Assessing Officer has not established that the payments made to the related parties are excessive or unreasonable under the three criterias specified in section 40A(2)(a) of the Act - there is no case for making disallowance of agents incentive expenses by invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(a) of the Act Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reduction of disallowance made from salary expenses.
2. Disallowance of "agents incentive" expenses under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reduction of Disallowance Made from Salary Expenses:

The Revenue challenged the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) to reduce the disallowance from 10% to 5% of salary expenses. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially disallowed 10% of the salary expenses due to perceived deficiencies in the vouchers, such as being prepared at a stretch and not stamped. However, the AO did not express any doubt regarding the genuineness of the expenses claimed. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 5%, reasoning that 10% was excessive.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO had not doubted the genuineness of the salary payments and had not proven the vouchers to be bogus. The Tribunal found that the issue was one of estimating possible deficiencies and saw no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.

2. Disallowance of "Agents Incentive" Expenses under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act:

The AO disallowed the "agents incentive" expenses under section 40(a)(ia) due to the late remittance of TDS but did not consider disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) because the expenses were already disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) as the TDS was remitted before the due date for filing the return. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) should have sustained the disallowance under section 40A(2)(b).

The Tribunal noted that section 40A(2)(a) requires the AO to form an opinion that the expenditure is excessive or unreasonable, considering the fair market value, the legitimate needs of the business, or the benefit derived. The AO did not carry out this exercise and incorrectly assumed automatic disallowance for payments to related parties.

The Tribunal found that the AO failed to prove that M/s. Systematic Associates and M/s. Image Associates were related parties under section 40A(2)(b). Additionally, the AO did not establish that the payments were excessive or unreasonable. The assessee argued that the commission was shared uniformly at 60% with all three parties, and since two were unrelated, the payment to the related party could not be considered excessive.

The Tribunal concluded that the AO did not properly appreciate the provisions of section 40A(2)(a) and rejected the Revenue's grounds for disallowance. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was only to support the CIT(A)'s order and did not require adjudication.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues.