2016 (1) TMI 542 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance tax deductible expenses - Held that - Disallowance of the expenses to the extent of ₹ 3.44 lakhs by the AO cannot be sustained in law particularly when audited accounts, containing two separate P&L accounts for the two distinct lines of activity, were not rejected. The disallowance could not have been made on the basis of surmises and conjectures. There was no material before the AO to come to the conclusion that the expenses were either excessive or unreasonable. The impugned order of the ITAT on this issue is unsustainable in law. In that view of the matter, the Court sets aside the assessment order of the AO as well as the impugned order of the ITAT on the above aspect. The order of the CIT (A) is restored. The question framed is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

Issues:
1. Appeal against ITAT order for AY 1996-97 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of business expenditure based on 'commercial expediency'.
3. Dispute over Director's salary and staff expenses.
4. CIT (A) decision in favor of Assessee.
5. ITAT setting aside CIT (A) decision and restoring AO's order.
6. Validity of disallowance of expenses by AO and ITAT.

Analysis:

1. The case involves an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against an ITAT order for the Assessment Year 1996-97. The primary question framed was whether the ITAT order was perverse in law regarding the determination of 'commercial expediency.'

2. The Assessee was engaged in agricultural and financial activities during the relevant year. The AO disallowed business expenditure of Rs. 3.44 lakhs, citing 'commercial expediency.' This disallowance was primarily related to the Director's salary and staff expenses incurred in the financial activities.

3. The CIT (A) allowed the Assessee's appeal, noting that the Director's salary and staff expenses were justified considering the shift from agricultural to financial activities. The CIT (A) found the AO's disallowance unjustified as the expenses were not excessive or unreasonable.

4. However, the ITAT set aside the CIT (A) decision and restored the AO's order. The ITAT's order lacked detailed reasoning and relied on surmises regarding the allocation of expenses between agricultural and financial activities.

5. The High Court observed that the disallowance of expenses by the AO and ITAT was unsustainable in law. The Court emphasized that the disallowance was based on conjectures without sufficient evidence of excessiveness or unreasonableness in the expenses.

6. Consequently, the High Court set aside the assessment order of the AO and the ITAT decision, restoring the CIT (A) order in favor of the Assessee. The Court held that the disallowance of expenses lacked legal merit and ruled in favor of the Assessee against the Revenue, allowing the appeal in favor of the Assessee.

← Previous Next →