2018 (2) TMI 743 - AT - Income Tax

Addition under the head Bakshis and Tips & Bakshis - allowable busniss expenditure - Held that - In the present case the plea of the assessee is based on the existing customs and practice prevalent for a long time. This was accepted by the tribunal in A.Y.2009-10 2017 (12) TMI 303 - ITAT KOLKATA . Moreover, the vouchers were filed before the CIT(A) which were omitted to be considered by the CIT(A). In these circumstance we are of the view that the decision rendered by the tribunal on identical facts should be followed. Respectfully following the decision of the tribunal we direct that the impugned addition made by the AO be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of expenses under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The Assessee, a cooperative society engaged in banking business, appealed against the disallowance of expenses under the heads 'Bakshis' and 'Tips & Bakshis' for A.Y. 2011-12. The AO disallowed these expenses of ?3,66,554 and ?63,050 respectively, citing lack of relevant vouchers and business expediency. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, despite the Assessee's explanation that these payments were festival bonuses to casual staff and essential for daily business operations. The Assessee argued that these expenses were part of salary/wages and necessary for smooth business conduct. The non-production of vouchers during proceedings was due to insufficient time granted by the AO. Sample vouchers were submitted to justify the claim.

The Assessee contended that the payments were obligatory and customary, supported by resolutions of the Board of Directors. The ITAT 'B' Bench in a previous case allowed similar expenditure on festive occasions, emphasizing the commercial expediency and evidence provided by the Assessee. The tribunal found the disallowance unjustified and allowed the Assessee's appeal. The DR argued lack of evidence before the AO and cited a Supreme Court decision, but the tribunal distinguished the case, stating that the Assessee's claim was based on existing customs and practices. The tribunal noted that vouchers submitted to the CIT(A) were not considered. Relying on the previous tribunal decision, the ITAT directed the deletion of the disallowed addition made by the AO.

Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing the importance of existing customs and practices in supporting the claim for deduction under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.