2017 (2) TMI 1512 - AT - Income Tax

Income derived from income from business or income from other sources - allowing only 2% of the expenditure on adhoc basis - HELD THAT - It is a fact that the assessee had not carried out any Segment I business activity i.e. incubation of new entities during the year under appeal. It had only carried out Segment II business activities during the year under appeal. The various streams of income derived from Segment II business activities were stated elsewhere hereinabove in this order. This fact was lost sight by the lower authorities and the findings given by the appellate forums in earlier years were simply copy pasted while disposing off the appeal for the year under appeal. We hold that the allowability of various expenses claimed by the assessee in its profit and loss account should have to be adjudicated based on the findings to be given with regard to the various streams of income in the form of shared services / infrastructure services etc by the lower authorities and the head of income thereon. AO would have to go through all the relevant agreements entered into by the assessee and give a finding as to whether the same would fall within the objects of the assessee trust so as to fall within the ambit of business income of the assessee. In case if the same is to be construed as income from other sources even then the allowability of the various expenses would have to be considered in the light of the provisions of section 57(iii) of the Act. We agree with the arguments of the ld AR that the findings given in the earlier years with regard to incubation of new entities does not apply to the facts during the year under appeal. We hold that the lower authorities had not adjudicated the various streams of income in the correct perspective for the year under appeal. Accordingly we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play to set aside the entire assessment to the file of the ld AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of income as 'income from business' or 'income from other sources.'
2. Allowability of expenses incurred for earning income.
3. Application of earlier years' appellate orders to the current assessment year.
4. Ad-hoc allowance of 2% of gross receipts as expenditure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Income:
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the income derived by the assessee from various activities should be classified as 'income from business' or 'income from other sources.' The assessee, a private trust established to finance rural segments and support rural entrepreneurs, reported income from shared services, infrastructure services, interest on loans, and other sources. The assessee argued that the income from shared services and infrastructure services should be classified as 'profits and gains of business or profession,' as these activities were carried out as part of its business operations. The lower authorities, however, treated these incomes as 'income from other sources,' following the appellate orders from earlier years, which the assessee contended were not applicable to the current assessment year due to different business activities undertaken.

2. Allowability of Expenses:
The assessee claimed various expenses incurred for the purpose of business, including staff costs, administration expenses, and other operational costs. The Assessing Officer (AO) restricted the allowance of expenses to 2% of the gross receipts, based on earlier appellate orders. The assessee argued that the expenses were directly related to the business activities and should be fully allowable. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the assessee's appeal.

3. Application of Earlier Years' Appellate Orders:
The assessee contended that the facts and business activities for the assessment year 2012-13 were different from those in earlier years. Specifically, the assessee had only undertaken Segment II business activities (providing shared services and infrastructure services) during the current year, unlike the earlier years where it was involved in the incubation of new entities (Segment I). The lower authorities, however, applied the findings from earlier years without considering the changed circumstances, which the assessee argued was inappropriate.

4. Ad-hoc Allowance of 2% of Gross Receipts:
The AO allowed only 2% of the gross receipts as expenditure for earning the income, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that this ad-hoc allowance was arbitrary and did not reflect the actual expenses incurred. The assessee provided detailed documentation to support the expenses claimed, including agreements, cost workings, and invoices. The lower authorities did not properly consider this evidence, leading to the assessee's appeal for a more accurate assessment of allowable expenses.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly adjudicated the various streams of income and the related expenses for the current assessment year. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not carried out any incubation activities during the year and had only engaged in providing shared and infrastructure services. Therefore, the findings from earlier years were not applicable. The Tribunal set aside the entire assessment to the AO for a de novo adjudication, directing the AO to consider the relevant agreements and determine whether the income should be classified as business income or income from other sources. Additionally, the AO was instructed to reassess the allowability of expenses in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

← Previous Next →