2014 (11) TMI 377 - AT - Income Tax

Payments for job works, salaries and wages disallowed Held that - The assessee has maintained books of account and the audited statements/Form 3CD which were furnished before the AO - In the absence of any evidence or finding to this effect being rendered, a summary, ad hoc disallowance of the kind made by the AO is not tenable the AO has not assigned any reason for pegging the disallowance at 20% of the total expenses claimed - CIT(A) rightly pointed out that only the amount claimed as an expense in the profit and loss account can be considered for disallowance and not the amount shown as outstanding in the balance sheet thus, the matter is required to be remitted back to the AO for fresh examination of the issue Decided in favour of revenue. Interest on advances receivable Held that - The advances have been given to related parties and that no interest has been charged on the advances - the assessee is paying interest @ of 9% to HDFC Bank for overdraft facility the AO has not examined whether there was any nexus between the Bank funds and the amount advanced to related parties the facts of the issue are not clear thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for proper examination and verification Decided in favour of Revenue. Commission payable Genuineness of creditors Held that - Commission payable was the opening balance as on 1-4-2005 in the assessee s balance-sheet under the head sundry creditors CIT(A) was rightly of the view that the assessee actually claimed an amount of ₹ 80,000/- as the brokerage the AO was not correct in disallowing the amount as appearing in the balance sheet against the claim made in the Profit and Loss account the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance towards payments for job works, salaries, and wages.
2. Disallowance of interest on advances receivable.
3. Disallowance of commission payable.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance towards payments for job works, salaries, and wages:

In the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 5,21,38,455/- towards job works, salaries, and wages but failed to substantiate the expenses with documentary evidence. Consequently, the AO disallowed 20% of the expenses, amounting to Rs. 1,02,47,691/-. Additionally, the AO disallowed Rs. 2,75,78,763/- claimed to be paid by M/s. Indus Fila on behalf of the assessee, due to lack of evidence proving the genuineness of these payments.

On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting that the AO's action was not based on any evidence and that the assessee had furnished necessary details like books of account, audited statements, and Form 3CD. The CIT(A) also observed that only the amount claimed as an expense in the profit and loss account could be considered for disallowance, not the amount shown in the balance sheet.

The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, found that the AO had not provided any evidence or specific instances of incorrect claims by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not justified the 20% disallowance. Regarding the Rs. 2,75,78,763/-, the Tribunal found that the AO had not clarified the basis of the disallowance. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for a de-novo examination and a clear, detailed finding on the allowability of the expenses, after providing the assessee an opportunity to present necessary details.

2. Disallowance of interest on advances receivable:

The AO observed that the assessee had shown advances of Rs. 3,31,77,368/- to related parties, which were not in the normal course of business but for investment purposes. The AO applied an interest rate of 10.5% to these advances, adding Rs. 32,02,889/- to the assessee's income.

On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting the assessee's claim that there was no correlation between the advances and interest-bearing funds.

The Tribunal noted that the advances were to related parties and that the assessee was paying 9% interest to HDFC Bank for an overdraft facility. The AO had not examined the nexus between the bank funds and the advances. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for proper examination and verification of the nexus, after providing the assessee an opportunity to present necessary details.

3. Disallowance of commission payable:

The AO disallowed Rs. 20,54,038/- appearing as the opening balance of commission payable to related parties, as the assessee failed to substantiate the claim with evidence.

On appeal, the CIT(A) noted that the assessee had only claimed Rs. 80,000/- as brokerage in the profit and loss account, while the AO had disallowed the entire opening balance reflected in the balance sheet. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 80,000/-.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the Revenue could not provide any evidence to counter the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground on this issue.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the issues of disallowance towards payments for job works, salaries, and wages, and interest on advances receivable back to the AO for re-examination.

← Previous Next →