2018 (2) TMI 56 - HC - Income Tax

Allowable busniss expenditure - payment for lease rental made by cheque after deducting the due TDS - genuineness & business expediency of any expenditure - Held that - Question No.1 is framed incorrectly. The question has been worded to suggest that the authorities held that if the payment of lease rent has been made by cheque and TDS has been deducted, the genuineness of the same and the business expediency stands established. Indeed mere payment by cheque purportedly towards lease rent and the deduction of TDS would not establish a case for deduction. However, the Appellate Authorities have not allowed the claim merely on the basis of payment being made by cheque and TDS having been deducted. The facts in entirety have been considered and thereafter, a conclusion has been arrived at that it was a business expenditure which was genuinely made towards payment of lease rent. Whether the assessee could not prove the business expediency of expenses when the said premises had not been used for the purpose of business? - Held that - This question challenging the deletion of addition made as the assessee failed to prove the business expediency as the said premises was not used for business purposes is not a question of law, much less a substantial question of law. Merely because there was some difficulty faced by the assessee in commencing the use of the premises it does not follow that the expenses claimed were not for the purpose of the assessee s business. If the expected fruits are not reaped from a business proposition, it will not be a basis to challenge the business expediency. Even if there was a delay in getting the electricity connection, that may be a result of non-fulfilment of contractual obligations, for which the assessee can claim damages. It would not be open for the department to suggest that in such circumstances, the lease should have been terminated. It is a business decision to be taken by the assessee. It is not the case of the department that the expenses have not been incurred or that they were made under an understanding camouflaged as a lease agreement. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of lease rent paid by the assessee.
2. Business expediency of the lease rent expenditure.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the disallowance of lease rent paid by the assessee. The Assessing Officer disallowed ?72,00,000 as lease rent due to lack of proof regarding the business use of the premises. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the appeal, emphasizing the business purpose of the lease and the genuine payment made through cheques with TDS deduction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) decision based on factual appreciation, concluding that the disallowance was unwarranted.

2. The business expediency of the lease rent expenditure was a crucial issue. The appellant justified the lease for expanding catering and banqueting services, facing delays due to various reasons like obtaining electricity connection and partners' absence. The lease payment was considered genuine as it was essential for business operations. The Appellate Authorities found the claim valid, emphasizing the logical connection between the lease expenditure and business requirements. The Court clarified that facing difficulties in starting the business does not negate the business expediency of expenses, especially when payments were made legitimately and for business purposes.

3. The Court addressed the framed questions, highlighting that the authorities did not solely rely on cheque payments and TDS deductions to validate the lease rent. The decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of all relevant factors, concluding that the lease expenditure was genuinely incurred for business purposes. The Court dismissed the challenge regarding proving business expediency, emphasizing that facing obstacles in business initiation does not invalidate the necessity of expenses. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed as it raised questions of fact without substantial legal issues, affirming the Tribunal's decision based on factual and logical considerations.