2017 (5) TMI 202 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Held that - Assessee filed the supporting documents on 21.12.2009 and the assessment order was framed on 31.12.2009 without any further communication. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that proper opportunities have not been provided by the Assessing Officer in this case and the submissions made by the assessee were not fully considered. Therefore, we set aside this issue to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer to decide the same afresh after providing the assessee due opportunity of being heard. Disallowance of vehicle running expenses to the extent of 10% - Held that - We find that the assessee was not maintaining log book towards the running of vehicles for the office purposes. Therefore, the action of ld. CIT(A) in restricting the addition to 10% of these expenses is found justifiable. Thus, the order of ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference Disallowance of telephone mobile expenses and vehicle fuel expenses - Held that - We find that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer for want of verification of proper supporting vouchers/evidences which could not furnished by the assessee to substantiate its claim. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A)

Summary

Issues:
- Unexplained cash credit u/s 68
- Disallowance of interest on unexplained cash credit
- Disallowance of vehicle expenses
- Disallowance of telephone, mobile, and vehicle fuel expenses
- Disallowance of interest claimed as bogus

Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68:
In the assessment for AY 2007-08, the Assessing Officer found unsecured loans of &8377; 20,00,000 from individuals with limited means. The creditors lacked the capacity to provide such loans, leading to the addition of the amount as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, emphasizing the lack of creditor capacity. However, the Tribunal set aside the issue, citing inadequate opportunities provided to the assessee and lack of full consideration of submissions. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

Disallowance of Vehicle Expenses:
Regarding the disallowance of vehicle running expenses for AY 2007-08, the Assessing Officer disallowed &8377; 2,64,180, comprising 10% of total expenses, due to the absence of a log book for office vehicle usage. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, considering the personal usage element. The Tribunal found the restriction to 10% justifiable due to the absence of a log book, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision.

Disallowance of Telephone, Mobile, and Vehicle Fuel Expenses:
For AY 2008-09, the Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of claimed expenses due to unverifiable vouchers for telephone, mobile, and vehicle fuel expenses. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating the failure to prove expenses were for business purposes. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A), upholding the disallowance due to lack of substantiating evidence.

Disallowance of Interest Claimed as Bogus:
In the same year, the Assessing Officer disallowed interest of &8377; 1,84,084 on loans obtained in FY 2006-07, as the principal loan amounts were previously dismissed. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal remanded this issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration along with AY 2007-08, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed both appeals for statistical purposes, remanding certain issues for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer. The judgments addressed various grounds of appeal, focusing on unexplained cash credits, disallowances of expenses, and interest claimed, ensuring due process and substantiating evidence were considered in each case.