2017 (5) TMI 115 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowances - certain expenditure - labour charges - conveyance and travelling expenses - sales commission - business promotion expenditure - disallowance on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of expenditure by filing necessary supporting bills and vouchers - Held that - Though, the assessee claims to have furnished evidences in support of expenditure, failed to prove with necessary evidences. We find merits in the findings of the A.O. for the reason that the assessee has filed ledger extract of expenditure without there being any supporting bills and vouchers. Mere production of ledger extract without supporting bills and vouchers would not absolve the assessee from proving the genuineness of expenditure. - the assessee has failed to furnish any cogent reasons for not furnishing relevant bills and vouchers before the lower authorities - disallowance upheld. Disallowance of payment to auditors u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for failure to deduct TDS - Held that - The Ld. A.R. for the assessee, during the course of hearing, submitted that he did not press the ground challenging the additions towards site expenses, advertisement and architect fees. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee, challenging these two additions has been dismissed as not pressed. Disallowance of depreciation of Ritz car and interest on Ritz car loan - Held that - Though the Act does not prescribe ownership of asset in the name of the assessee for claiming depreciation, assessee failed to prove the use of such vehicle in the business of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee failed to prove the use of vehicle in the business of the assessee, which is mandatory for claiming depreciation on any assets. Similarly, in respect of interest on vehicle loan, for the similar reasons, the A.O. has disallowed interest paid on vehicle loan - disallowance upheld. Addition towards negative cash balance in the cash book for the assessment year 2011-12 - Held that - the assessee has filed a chart showing negative cash balances on various dates. On perusal of the chart filed by the assessee, we find that the highest negative cash balance appeared on 13th August, 2010. Once the peak negative cash balance as on 13.8.2010 is treated as unexplained income of the assessee, then it will take care subsequent negative cash balances. Therefore, we are of the view that the A.O. was erred in making additions towards all the negative cash balances appeared on various dates - we set aside the issue to the file of the A.O. and direct the A.O. to verify the details filed by the assessee to arrive at peak negative cash balance for the purpose of addition. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of various expenditures for want of bills and vouchers.
2. Disallowance of payment to auditors u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for failure to deduct tax at source.
3. Disallowance of depreciation and interest on Ritz car loan.
4. Disallowance of site expenses.
5. Additions towards negative cash balance.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Various Expenditures:
The A.O. disallowed expenditures on labor charges, conveyance, traveling expenses, sales commission, and business promotion due to the assessee's failure to furnish supporting bills and vouchers. The A.O. also noted the failure to deduct TDS on sales commission payments exceeding the limit under Section 194H. The assessee argued that it provided bills and vouchers and that labor charges were paid through maestries without maintaining a wage register. The Tribunal found merit in the A.O.'s findings, noting that mere ledger extracts without supporting documents do not prove genuineness. The CIT(A) provided partial relief where bills were furnished and directed the A.O. to verify other expenditures. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the assessee's failure to provide necessary evidence, including the excuse of records being destroyed during the Hudh Hudh cyclone.

2. Disallowance of Payment to Auditors:
The assessee did not press the ground challenging the disallowance of payment to auditors under Section 40(a)(ia) for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12. Consequently, this ground was dismissed as not pressed.

3. Disallowance of Depreciation and Interest on Ritz Car Loan:
The A.O. disallowed the depreciation and interest on the Ritz car loan, noting the vehicle was owned by a director, not the assessee. The assessee argued the vehicle was used for business purposes, supported by a board resolution. The Tribunal found the assessee failed to prove the vehicle's use in business, a requirement for claiming depreciation. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of both depreciation and interest on the vehicle loan.

4. Disallowance of Site Expenses:
The assessee did not press the ground challenging the disallowance of site expenses, advertisement, and architect fees for the assessment year 2011-12. Thus, these grounds were dismissed as not pressed.

5. Additions Towards Negative Cash Balance:
The A.O. added ?33,55,093 towards negative cash balance, noting the absence of evidence from the assessee. The assessee claimed the negative balance was due to unrecorded customer receipts and argued for peak credit addition instead of cumulative negative balances. The Tribunal found the assessee failed to reconcile the negative balances with receipts and upheld the A.O.'s addition. However, it directed the A.O. to consider the peak negative cash balance for addition purposes, setting aside the issue for verification.

Conclusion:
The appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12 were partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeals by the revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal's order was pronounced in the open court on 28th April 2017.