2014 (5) TMI 231 - HC - Income Tax

Restriction of disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act Held that - CIT(Appeals) followed the judgement of the same assessee delivered by the Tribunal - the assessee had advertised the exchange offer in the newspaper and the commission earned from ICICI Bank was also disclosed - Out of the total number of persons to whom discount was offered, some of them also had given notarised affidavit - it directed to treat only the part of income as unexplained expenses - both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal adjudged the issue based on factual matrix thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Justification of restricting disallowance from Rs. 33,19,203/- to Rs. 59,000.
3. Applicability of earlier Tribunal decision on unsubstantiated expenditure.
4. Binding precedence of ITAT's order for AY 2001-02.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act
The case involved an appeal arising from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the disallowance of expenditure. The primary question raised was whether the assessee had failed to prove the allowability of the impugned expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had disallowed a substantial amount claimed as discount expenditure by the assessee company, leading to a dispute over the allowability of the expenditure.

Issue 2: Justification of restricting disallowance
The Tribunal had upheld the order of the CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance from Rs. 33,19,203 to Rs. 59,000. The contention was whether the Tribunal was justified in this restriction without appreciating the lack of proof regarding the genuineness of payments made by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the verification of payments carried out by the Assessing Officer, which raised doubts about the authenticity of the transactions.

Issue 3: Applicability of earlier Tribunal decision
The CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance of unsubstantiated expenditure by relying on an earlier Tribunal decision in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year. The question was whether this reliance was appropriate, considering the differences in facts between the two cases. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision based on the precedent set in the earlier years for the same assessee.

Issue 4: Binding precedence of ITAT's order for AY 2001-02
The Tribunal's decision to restrict the disallowance based on an order from a previous assessment year raised the issue of whether there was a binding precedence or proposition in the ITAT's order for that year. The Tribunal's justification for upholding the restriction was questioned, emphasizing the lack of a clear legal basis for the decision.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the tax appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The judgment highlighted the factual matrix of the case and affirmed the findings of both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, noting the absence of perversity in their decisions.