2016 (8) TMI 909 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 40A(2)(a) - whether the appellant has substantiated the plea that the visits made to foreign countries were for promotion of business? - Addition u/s 69C - Held that - It is the categorical admission of the learned counsel for the appellant that no documents were produced, either, before the Original Authority or Appellate Authority, as the case may be, to prove that there was any business transactions or activity in the foreign countries, visited by the Directors of the appellant-Company, on the said aspect. Pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina is substantiated and finding on that aspect, has not been disputed. From the above materials, it could be safely concluded that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden to prove that the visit to the above countries was only for the business purpose. The said finding recorded by the appellate authority, the expenses incurred for pilgrimage, has not been disputed and no materials have been filed to contradict the same. When the appellant has failed to substantiate that the visit to Mecca and Medina by the Directors, in whose names, tickets were issued and spent money through their credit cards for the stay in hotels, SPA, etc., was for promotion of business, only it cannot be contended that both the original/appellate authorities have erred, in not properly adverting to the statutory provisions, under Sections 40A(2)(a) and 69C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. On facts, when the appellant did not satisfy the requirements for claiming deductions, disallowance has to consequently follow. Thus, the disallowance under the head, Business Promotion Charges and under the head, Foreign Travel Expenditure , cannot be said to be said to be erroneous, both on law and facts. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Business Promotion Expenses under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of Foreign Travel Expenses under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act.
3. Treatment of unexplained expenses under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Business Promotion Expenses under Section 40A(2)(a):
The appellant, a private limited company, claimed business promotion expenses amounting to ?15,77,819/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed 30% of this expenditure, i.e., ?4,73,345/-, under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, considering it excessive and unreasonable. The AO observed that the expenses included payments for SPA, hotels at Mecca & Medina, and purchase of apparels, which were deemed personal in nature. The appellant argued that these expenses were legitimate business needs, but failed to provide specific documents to substantiate this claim. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the appellant did not prove that the expenses were related to business promotion. The court concluded that the disallowance was justified as the appellant did not satisfy the requirements for claiming deductions.

2. Disallowance of Foreign Travel Expenses under Section 69C:
The appellant claimed foreign travel expenses of ?22,14,876/-, of which ?13,90,620/- was disallowed by the AO under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act due to lack of supporting bills and vouchers. The appellant contended that the foreign travel was for business promotion, but could not produce all necessary documents before the AO. The CIT(A) and ITAT upheld the disallowance, stating that the evidence provided at the appellate stage was not acceptable as it was in the name of individuals and not related to business expenses. The court agreed with this view, noting that the appellant failed to prove that the foreign travel was for business purposes, and thus, the disallowance was appropriate.

3. Treatment of Unexplained Expenses under Section 69C:
The AO treated the unsubstantiated foreign travel expenses of ?13,90,620/- as unexplained expenses under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the expenses were made through account payee cheques and were evident from the books of accounts. However, the court noted that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that the expenses were for business purposes. The appellate authority observed that the expenses were personal in nature, including pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina, and thus, the addition made by the AO was justified. The court upheld the disallowance, stating that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal, answering all substantial questions of law against the appellant. The disallowances under the heads of Business Promotion Charges and Foreign Travel Expenditure were upheld, as the appellant did not provide adequate evidence to substantiate that the expenses were related to business activities. The treatment of unexplained expenses under Section 69C was also confirmed, as the appellant failed to prove the business nature of the expenses.