2015 (10) TMI 1273 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of commission/brokerage - as per AO assessee neither offered the same for taxation nor produced any evidence to show that the deductors have reversed the entries wrongly made by them in this respect in their original TDS returns by way of its revision - CIT(A) deleted the dis-allowance - Held that - After careful consideration, we find that Ld. CIT(A) did not commit any error in granting appropriate relief to the assessee. It was the case of the assessee that he had earned total commission of ₹ 3,10,44,414/- from both the parties and confirmations were also submitted. The assessee also produced the TDS certificate in which correct amount was shown. In view of these evidences, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of expenditure in relation to business promotion, electricity, rent payment, Books and periodicals, printing and stationery, entertainment & misc. expenses, meeting expenses, vehicle expenses, depreciation, vehicle insurance, driver s salary, travelling expenses and gift expenses - Held that;- For the expenses incurred under the head business promotion expenses the entire expenses could not be disallowed. The assessee had discharged his burden of proof by submitting the name of the persons to whom such incentive/discount/commission had been paid. After considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made on account of business promotion expenses, rent and electricity expenses. However, learned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance at 20% of the expenses incurred in respect of telephone and 10% of expenses incurred on account of vehicle, car depreciation and periodicals/printing and stationery, travelling and conveyance, entertainment & gift expenses. He also upheld the disallowance to the extent of 20% in respect of meeting expenses. Learned CIT(A) had also taken into consideration that according to the CBDT Instruction No.225/26/2006-ITA-II(Pt.) dated 8.9.2010, wherein guidelines for completion of scrutiny assessment selected on the basis of AIR information laid down and if disallowances are made in excess of ₹ 10 lakhs, then the AO has to obtain prior permission/approval of the jurisdictional CIT to proceed with area of investigation other than AIR based scrutiny assessment. He observed that such instructions have not been followed and from the assessment record he noted that the AO did not consider the aforementioned CBDT instructions while proceeding to make other disallowable business expenses. We decline to interfere in the relief granted by learned CIT(A) - Decided in favour of assessee in part. Commission/brokerage - added as income of the assessee - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee stated that this particular sum was advance for labour charges to Anik Developers for interior decoration in the personal flat. Due to certain reasons the fund was refunded to the assessee and TDS was deducted by the Anik Developers by mistake. TDS certificate was also not issued by Anik Developers. After considering the relevant facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that there was no income to the extent of ₹ 75 636/-. It was a personal advance for interior decoration work to the builder which had been refunded by them to the assessee. He further observed that the assessee was not a developer or in the development business and there was no income to the extent of ₹ 75,636-. He therefore deleted he addition. We do not find any infirmity in the above given reasoning of the CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of commission/brokerage income.
2. Disallowance of business promotion, electricity, and rent expenses.
3. Disallowance of books & periodicals, printing, and stationery expenses.
4. Disallowance of entertainment and miscellaneous expenses.
5. Disallowance of salary expenses.
6. Disallowance of meeting expenses.
7. Disallowance of commission/brokerage from Anik Developers.
8. Disallowance of depreciation and driver's salary.
9. Disallowance of travelling and conveyance expenses.
10. Disallowance of gift expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Commission/Brokerage Income:
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 10,75,373 due to discrepancies between the brokerage income shown by the assessee and the details generated from the system. The CIT(A) found that the companies had uploaded erroneous entries into the 26AS system and had rectified these entries. The correct commission figures tallied with the assessee's claim, supported by confirmation letters and TDS certificates. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's ground.

2. Disallowance of Business Promotion, Electricity, and Rent Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 18,07,503.40 for lack of documentary evidence. The CIT(A) observed that these expenses were incurred for maintaining offices and offering customer services, and the net profit declared was 78.92%. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, finding the expenses genuine. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not follow CBDT instructions for scrutiny assessments.

3. Disallowance of Books & Periodicals, Printing, and Stationery Expenses:
The AO disallowed 25% of these expenses due to lack of supporting evidence. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 10%, considering the overall facts and circumstances. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no reason to interfere.

4. Disallowance of Entertainment and Miscellaneous Expenses:
The AO disallowed 25% of these expenses. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 10%, considering the nature of the expenses and the evidence provided. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

5. Disallowance of Salary Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 12,44,600 for lack of salary register and Form 16A. The CIT(A) found the salary expenses genuine, noting that the amount was the bare minimum for 13 employees and that no tax deduction was required as the salaries were below the taxable limit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

6. Disallowance of Meeting Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 10,91,632 for lack of documentary evidence. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 20%, considering the nature of the expenses and the evidence provided. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

7. Disallowance of Commission/Brokerage from Anik Developers:
The AO added Rs. 75,636 as commission income. The CIT(A) found that this was a refund of an advance for interior decoration in the assessee's personal flat, and not income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

8. Disallowance of Depreciation and Driver's Salary:
The AO disallowed 25% of these expenses. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 10%, considering the nature of the expenses and the evidence provided. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

9. Disallowance of Travelling and Conveyance Expenses:
The AO disallowed 25% of these expenses. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 10%, considering the nature of the expenses and the evidence provided. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

10. Disallowance of Gift Expenses:
The AO disallowed 25% of these expenses. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 10%, considering the nature of the expenses and the evidence provided. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The CIT(A) had provided detailed reasoning for each disallowance and had considered the nature of the expenses and the evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the CIT(A).