2016 (1) TMI 1495 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus expenses - non-production of supporting evidence and necessary details in relation to various expenses - AO disallowed the expenses on estimate basis @ 30% of all the expenses - HELD THAT - We find that the AO has disallowed the various expenses on adhoc basis on the ground of non-availability of the supporting documents. The expenses are in agreement with the earlier year expenses. No disallowance of such expenses has made in the earlier year assessment orders. AR has explained all the expenses and submitted the necessary supporting details in the form of paper book which is placed on record. AO failed to point out the specific disallowances from the books of accounts of the assessee. Revenue s appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XX, Kolkata.
- Disallowance of expenses on non-production of supporting evidence.
- Assessment framed by DCIT, Circle-33, Kolkata under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Relief allowed by CIT(A) in relation to various expenses disallowed by AO.
- Adhoc disallowance of expenses by AO.
- Compliance with rules of justice, equity, and good conscience in estimating income.
- Comparison of expenses with earlier years.
- Lack of specific disallowances pointed out by AO.
- Application of principles from BrijBhushan Lal Parduman Kumar v. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC).

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XX, Kolkata, pertaining to an assessment framed by DCIT, Circle-33, Kolkata under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2008-09.

2. The solitary issue raised in the appeal was the disallowance of a relief of Rs. 65,77,786/- by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) due to non-production of supporting evidence and necessary details in relation to various expenses claimed by the assessee.

3. The assessee, engaged in the business of a civil contractor, had claimed expenses including cost of materials, labor expenses, salary, wages, bonus, power and fuel, staff welfare, repair and maintenance, and tour and traveling in the profit and loss account.

4. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the expenses on an estimate basis of 30% due to the failure of the assessee to provide bills, vouchers, and books of account for verification during the assessment proceedings.

5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition made by the AO, emphasizing the need for a fair estimation of income by the AO, guided by principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, and the requirement of a reasonable nexus between the estimate and available material.

6. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the expenses were in agreement with those of earlier years, and the assessee had provided necessary supporting details which were not specifically countered by the AO.

7. Citing the decision in BrijBhushan Lal Parduman Kumar v. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC), the Tribunal reiterated the necessity for a fair estimate of income, avoiding arbitrariness, and maintaining a reasonable nexus with available material and circumstances of the case.

8. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as the Revenue failed to provide any grounds to challenge the findings, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

9. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the disallowed expenses, as the AO's adhoc disallowance lacked a reasonable basis and failed to comply with the principles of estimating income fairly.