2015 (4) TMI 444 - HC - Income Tax

Excess lease rentals on the basis of inflated cost of windmills allowed - Tribunal allowing depreciation on the inflated cost of windmills purchased by the assessee - Held that - The order of the Appellate Tribunal cannot be faulted as the Tribunal considered the previous findings of certain group companies of Weizmann being involved and on inquiry it was found that the commission / fees paid by NEG Micon was not received by the assessee Accordingly the Tribunal considered the statement of comparable cases made by the assessee and concluded that the payment made by the assessee was certainly not inflated. The Tribunal considered the fact that setting up of windmills was a specialized task and came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer had no evidence on record to establish that the price of windmills paid by the assessee was not the actual price or that the price was inflated. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had proceeded on the basis of a presumption that the cost of each windmill is inflated by 1 crore and it had not been proved by documentary evidence that such money came back to the assessee from the concern to whom commission was paid namely M/s.Suhani Traders. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in holding that there is nothing on record to prove the excessive amount of lease rent was paid. The said issue is identical in all appeals and the appeals came to be rejected while upholding the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeals filed for the year 2002-03 and 2005-06 were also dismissed. The cross objections filed by the assessee for the year 2002-03 were also rejected. Payments made for sharing of utilities - whether do not attract section 194C and therefore disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) is to be deleted as held by Tribunal - Held that - The payment made to Weizmann group of is not in the nature of income but was expenditure reimbursed which cannot be regarded as a revenue receipt and therefore the Tribunal considering the provisions of Section 194C of the Act has upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejecting the contention of the department. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of actual price vs. inflated price of windmills.
2. Depreciation on inflated cost of windmills purchased.
3. Excess lease rentals based on inflated cost of windmills.
4. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) related to sharing of utilities payments.

Analysis:
1. The appeals raised questions regarding the assessment years 2002-03 to 2006-07, focusing on the actual vs. inflated prices of windmills purchased by the assessee. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on windmills, alleging inflated costs. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) later deleted these additions, citing lack of evidence implicating the assessee in inflated transactions. The ITAT upheld this decision, emphasizing the absence of proof supporting the inflated cost theory.

2. The issue of depreciation on the inflated cost of windmills was also addressed. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation, suspecting excess payments and collusion between companies. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reversed this decision, stating that all payments were accounted for and no evidence supported excessive payments. The ITAT concurred, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and emphasizing the lack of evidence to justify disallowance.

3. Concerning excess lease rentals based on inflated windmill costs, the Assessing Officer disallowed claims under Section 40(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) overturned this disallowance, highlighting proper accounting and lack of evidence for excessive payments. The ITAT upheld this decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and emphasizing the absence of substantial evidence supporting excess payments.

4. An additional issue involved disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) related to sharing of utilities payments. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision, stating that payments to the Weizmann group were not income but reimbursed expenditures, not warranting disallowance. This issue was not raised before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or the Tribunal initially, and the ITAT rejected the Revenue's appeal, finding no substantial question of law. Ultimately, all appeals were dismissed, with costs not awarded.