2016 (11) TMI 1155 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of rent - rent has been paid by the assessee to the licensor under the head agreement of amenities - Held that - The Licensor has confirmed the payment for extra amenities which has been produced. Further the TDS has also been deducted by the assessee to the tune of ₹ 19,250/- and the challan in this regard has also been produced. The licensor has also produced the affidavit confirming the transaction. The assessee / licensee has also produced the bank statement on record which lies. All these piece of evidences speaks about the payment to the tune of ₹ 55,000/- w.e.f December 2010 to December 2013. Thus we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) has wrongly appreciated the evidences produced before him but did not consider the relevant evidence on record, therefore we set aside the finding on this issue and allowed the payment of the rent on account of extra amenities for the period December 2010 to December 2013 - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of deferred revenue expenditure - whether the deferred revenue expense is required to be allowed or not? - Held that - Matter of controversy has been adjudicated by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in case of Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Mumbai V/s. Raymond Ltd. 2012 (4) TMI 127 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein it is specifically held that the preoperative expenses which are in nature of revenue is liable to be allowed in the interest of justice. In view of the said circumstances we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order of Assessing Officer which is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. In view of the above said law we are of the view that the CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer, therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deferred revenue expenses - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance u/s.69C - All the negative cash balance was added to the income of the assessee u/s.69C - Held that - The expenditure is in connection with the expenditure incurred by the employee of the assessee due to their exigency. All work and thereafter this expenditure was entered into the cash book without reimbursement to the said employees. However, after the reimbursement on record the entries were recorded in the account books. This contention was not discussed by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A). Therefore, in view of the said circumstances we are of the view that the expenditure to the tune of ₹ 58,635/- is required to be further examined in view of the accounts book / material available on record in accordance with law. Therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and matter is hereby ordered to be restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of this issue by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Rent
2. Disallowance of Deferred Revenue Expenditure
3. Addition under section 69C

Issue 1 - Disallowance of Rent:
The assessee contested the disallowance of rent amounting to ?2,15,000. The rent was paid for extra amenities under an agreement, which the CIT(A) questioned for lack of clarity on the amenities provided. However, the ITAT found sufficient evidence in the form of agreements, vouchers, TDS deduction, affidavits, and bank statements supporting the rent payment. The ITAT concluded that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the relevant evidence and allowed the rent payment for the specified period. The decision favored the assessee against the revenue.

Issue 2 - Disallowance of Deferred Revenue Expenditure:
The dispute involved the disallowance of deferred revenue expenditure amounting to ?25,880. The Assessing Officer disallowed it citing section 35D limitations. The ITAT referenced a Bombay High Court case, emphasizing that preoperative expenses akin to revenue should be allowed. Consequently, the ITAT disagreed with the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to permit the deferred revenue expenses. This issue was decided in favor of the assessee against the revenue.

Issue 3 - Addition under section 69C:
Regarding the addition of ?58,635 under section 69C, the assessee argued that negative cash balances in the cash book arose due to expenses incurred by employees on behalf of the company. The ITAT noted discrepancies in the assessment, where the authority failed to consider the circumstances leading to negative balances. The ITAT found the expenditure justifiable and ordered a re-examination by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the need to review the accounts and materials available. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A) decision, ruling in favor of the assessee against the revenue.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes, with the judgment pronounced on 23rd September 2016.