2017 (12) TMI 993 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - assessment was reopened observing that the assessee has substantial interest of 94.54% in M/s. Model Sales Agency Pvt. Ltd. which has advanced loans to the assessee and his other concerns - Held that - This fact came to the notice of the AO during the assessment of M/s. Model Sales Agency Pvt. Ltd. Thus, in our opinion this information was sufficient to make a belief by the AO that income has escaped assessment. Thus the reopening of assessment was valid. The assessee has not paced on record any material to prove the facts otherwise. Thus, the re-opening of assessment under section 147 is valid. In the result the ground No.1 &2 are dismissed. Addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - AO treated the advance as deemed dividend holding that the assessee was having substantial interest of 94.54% in Model Sales Agency Pvt Ltd which has advanced loan to the concern - CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO - Held that - We have seen that the assessee has not placed on record any material to convince us to take a contrary view; hence the ground of appeal raised by assessee is dismissed. Disallowances of service charges - no TDS made - CITA) confirmed the action of AO holding that the assessee has admitted that no TDS has been made. Secondly, the assessee had debited the expenses on the basis of debit notes sent be service provider. The said expenses have not paid by the assessee and claimed as not payable to Tripura on line Lottery so the expenses were not paid wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business - Held that - We have noted the assessee has not placed on record any material to convince us to take a contrary view; hence the ground of appeal raised by assessee is dismissed. Lottery terminal charges and logistic paper charges - non deduction of TDS as the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable - CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO on both the disallowance holding that the assessee has admitted that no TDS has been made - Held that - The assessee had debited the expenses on the basis of debit notes sent be service provider. The said expenses have not paid by the assessee and claimed as not payable to Tripura on line Lottery so the expenses were not paid wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. We have noted the assessee has not placed on record any material to convince us to take a contrary view; hence the ground of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed. Disallowance of mobile charges - no TDS was made - CIT-A confirmed the same - Held that - We have noted that before us neither the assessee has filed any documentary evidence or any written submission to substantiate the grounds of appeal. Hence, this ground of appeal is also failed. Disallowance of various expenses postage expenses, courier expenses and stationary expenses - expenses are not verifiable - Held that - We have noted that the assessee has not raised any ground of appeal before ld CIT(A) challenging these disallowances. We have noted there is no adjudication of these grounds of appeal by ld CIT(A). Even otherwise the assessee has not filed any documentary evidences to substantiate his claim that all expenses were made wholly and exclusively for business. Hence, this ground of appeal is also dismissed. Disallowance under section 14A - CIT(A) partly sustained the disallowance @ 5% of the exempt income - Held that - We have seen that in absence of any explanation or documentary evidences on record the disallowance sustained by ld CIT(A is reasonable one. Hence, this ground of appeal is also dismissed. Denial of benefit of section 10(36) - addition for the want of evidence - CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO that no proof was furnished by assessee even at the stage of appeal - Held that - We have not that the assessee has not placed any evidence before us except raising the grounds of appeal. Thus, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal; hence this ground of appeal is also dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s.147.
3. Addition made under section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
4. Disallowance of service charges.
5. Disallowance of EMI lottery terminal charges.
6. Disallowance of logistics paper charges.
7. Disallowance of mobile charges.
8. Disallowance made out of postage & courier charges and printing & stationery expenses.
9. Sustaining disallowance made under section 14A.
10. Denial of benefits under section 10(36) of the I.T. Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals by the assessee against orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2006-07 and 2009-10. The primary issue was related to section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended against the validity of proceedings and assessment order under sections 147 and 143(3) r.w.s.147, which were upheld by the authorities. The case revolved around loans advanced by a company where the assessee had substantial interest, triggering the application of section 2(22)(e).

2. The assessment was reopened based on the company's loans to concerns in which a person with substantial interest was involved. The AO made various additions including under section 2(22)(e), service charges, EMI lottery terminal charges, logistics paper charges, and others. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions, stating that the assessee failed to provide evidence or substantiate their claims. The tribunal noted the absence of the assessee during proceedings and upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions.

3. The tribunal dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee related to various disallowances, including service charges, lottery terminal charges, logistics paper charges, mobile charges, postage & courier charges, and printing & stationery expenses. The disallowances were based on non-compliance with TDS requirements and lack of evidence to prove business purposes. The tribunal found the assessee's arguments unsubstantiated and upheld the disallowances.

4. The tribunal also addressed the disallowance under section 14A and denial of benefits under section 10(36) of the Act. The disallowance under section 14A was partly sustained by the CIT(A) based on the Bombay High Court decision. The denial of benefits under section 10(36) was upheld due to the lack of evidence provided by the assessee. The tribunal found no merit in the grounds raised by the assessee and dismissed the appeals for both assessment years.

5. In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeals by the assessee for both assessment years, upholding the decisions of the authorities regarding the additions and disallowances made under various sections of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal emphasized the lack of substantiating evidence provided by the assessee throughout the proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.