2014 (6) TMI 221 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of claim of interest and salary payment Proper details furnished but not verified - Held that - The order of the CIT(A) including the remand report, does not indicate the amounts invested by the individuals - Even though assessee furnished evidences regarding payment of interest and consequent TDS made in respective individuals cases and confirmations of them were filed, the amount in the absence of their individual investments and the interest calculation of amount claimed cannot be allowed - assessee has not placed either the annual report or the computation of income - whether the interest is to be allowed as a business expenditure or expenditure relating to earning any interest under the head Other Sources is also not clear. The utilisation of the amounts for the purpose of business is required to be established if the amounts are invested in the business or under head income from house property or other sources required to be examined - none of the details are placed except the confirmation letters from the parties, thus, the expenditure in the absence of necessary details of the claims and also under which head the amounts are claimed cannot be allowed - even the salaries and wages are also stated to have been paid for the purpose of the company the details were not on record nor placed before the AO and CIT(A) - In the absence of any evidence on record, the expenditure without getting it verified by the AO cannot be allowed thus the matter is remitted back to the AO for verification.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of interest and salary payments disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)).

Analysis:
The case involved an assessee appealing against the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs.7,18,252 and salary payment of Rs.2,81,700 by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The AO treated share application money and unsecured loans as income from unexplained sources due to non-compliance and lack of verification of books of accounts. The interest disallowed was paid to individuals, not the firms from which the loans were obtained. The CIT(A) deleted the additions related to share application money and unsecured loans but confirmed the disallowance of interest and salary payments. The assessee argued that the interest on loans should be allowed as tax was deducted at source, and salary payments were legitimate business expenses. However, the authorities found a lack of correlation between interest expenditure and provided no details regarding salary and wages. The Tribunal noted that while the loans' source was verified, the individual investments were not documented, and the nature of expenditure was unclear without income computation details. The Tribunal set aside the AO and CIT(A) orders, requiring verification and proper documentation before allowing the expenses. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

This judgment highlights the importance of providing detailed evidence and documentation to support claims of interest and salary payments. It emphasizes the need for verifying the source of funds and ensuring proper categorization of expenses to establish their legitimacy. The decision underscores the significance of complying with tax regulations and maintaining accurate financial records to substantiate expenditure claims during assessments and appeals.