2014 (12) TMI 569 - HC - Income Tax

In-genuine expenses disallowed while some of the expenses allowed by Tribunal - Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made on account of in-genuine expenses as the assessee failed to substantiate the same despite giving opportunity to explain Held that - The order of the ITAT is based upon a correct appreciation of the material on record - the tribunal not only noticed the net profit rate of the assessee for the AY 2006-07 but as well as of the subsequent year 2008-09 which had been accepted by the AO - while accepting expenses claimed by the assessee in respect of the same kind of work got done from various firms - the assessee had declared net profit in the previous AY i.e. 2006-07 against the gross receipt of ₹ 84,88,534/- being direct expenses incurred on hoardings and painting were accepted by the revenue as the net profit in that assessment year was 3.56% only - Whereas for the relevant AY 2007-08 the net profit rate was shown at 5.23% which was better than the rate accepted in the last year assessee rightly contended that its claim of having incurred expenses towards hoarding, flex structure and paint were a necessary part of business being direct expenses, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the assessee with regard to the other disallowance the order of the Tribunal is upheld Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Deletion of addition made on account of in-genuine expenses.
3. Recording of perverse findings contrary to evidence on record.

Analysis:
1. The revenue challenged the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order for assessment year 2007-08 under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act. The substantial questions of law raised included the deletion of additions on account of in-genuine expenses and the recording of findings contrary to evidence. The assessee had declared income against gross receipts and claimed expenses, leading to scrutiny by the Assessing Officer.

2. The Assessing Officer disallowed various expenses claimed by the assessee, including in-genuine expenses, site rent, personal use expenses, and running of tempo expenses. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee moved an application under Section 154, rectifying a mistake regarding disallowed expenses to M/s Jay Balaji Arts & Publicity.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax partly allowed the appeal, maintaining some additions made by the Assessing Officer. Both the revenue and the assessee filed separate appeals against the Commissioner's order. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The revenue contended that the ITAT's order was erroneous, while the respondent supported the ITAT's findings based on remand reports and previous assessment proceedings.

4. The High Court analyzed the ITAT's order and found it based on evidence and supported by reasoning. The ITAT's judgment highlighted the gross receipts, claimed expenses, and net profit rate, ultimately disagreeing with the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The High Court noted the consistency in the assessee's expenses declaration and the necessity of the expenses for the business.

5. The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding no legal infirmity in the tribunal's discretion. The Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, concluding that the tribunal's decision was well-founded and did not warrant interference. The judgment emphasized the importance of relevant considerations in arriving at a decision and highlighted the lack of legal support for the revenue's case.