2014 (4) TMI 437 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of various expenses Held that - All the relevant details asked for by the AO were duly produced before the assessment - It is unjustified on the part of AO that conclusive evidence or complete evidence was not produced - The AO is obliged to give the nature of non-compliance made by the assessee vis-a-vis what is filed by the assessee - A sweeping statement cannot be given that the assessee failed to file conclusive evidence or proper evidence as such observation becomes non-specific having no objective basis CIT(A) observed that the assessee has made due compliance before the AO - When the compliance is made and is not considered by the Assessing Officer it cannot be held as fault on the part of the assessee - CIT(A) rightly appreciated the situation and granted partial relief Decided against Revenue. High ad-hoc disallowance Held that - The AO has failed to act in a judicious and objective manner to point out the exact nature of non-compliance and its effect on expenditure - he has substantially disallowed the expenditure on ad hoc basis - there is no justification in such disallowance thus there is no justification in again retaining small disallowance on ad hoc basis without giving any reason - there is no justification to retain any disallowance of expenditure made by the assessee without any objective finding about the disallowability - The assessee s books of accounts are audited and not rejected - the AO in the first part of the order has mentioned about the assessee s provision of all necessary details Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses under various heads without proper justification.
2. Addition of suspense account amount without adequate reasoning.
3. Challenge to the additions sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A).

Issue 1: Disallowance of expenses under various heads without proper justification:
The appeal by the revenue questioned the deletion of specific additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) concerning Diwali, conveyance, traveling expenses, repair, maintenance, car depreciation, insurance, telephone expenses, and ad hoc disallowance. The Commissioner of Income Tax(A) (CIT(A)) justified the deletions based on lack of proper justification for high ad hoc disallowances without a valid basis. The CIT(A) confirmed partial disallowances on grounds of non-business expenditure or personal use, while deleting the remaining amounts. The CIT(A) emphasized the need for valid reasoning behind disallowances, in line with the submissions made by the assessee.

Issue 2: Addition of suspense account amount without adequate reasoning:
The AO added an amount from the suspense account without thorough verification or seeking additional information from the assessee. However, the CIT(A) found no specific justification for this addition, leading to its deletion. The CIT(A) emphasized the importance of providing clear reasons for such additions and highlighted the lack of justification for the AO's action in this regard.

Issue 3: Challenge to the additions sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A):
The assessee challenged the sustained additions by the CIT(A) related to expenses on annual day celebration, Diwali expenses, and repair and maintenance costs, among others. The CIT(A) provided relief by deleting portions of the additions, citing lack of proper justification for high ad hoc disallowances. The CIT(A) considered the submissions and evidence presented by the assessee, emphasizing the need for objective reasoning behind disallowances. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the lack of justification for retaining any disallowance without clear findings on disallowability.

In summary, the judgment focused on the necessity for proper justification behind disallowing expenses and adding amounts to accounts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete certain additions due to insufficient reasoning provided by the AO. The judgment emphasized the importance of objective assessments and valid justifications for disallowances, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal and the allowance of the assessee's challenge to the sustained additions.