2018 (9) TMI 1029 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of claim of expenditure on the ground that it relates to prior period - Held that - The chartered accountant in the audit report could have qualified the expenditure claimed, as the sales incentive was also pertaining to sales made in the earlier year. The finding of the Tribunal is that the sales incentive was to be quantified and was due and payable only during the period relevant to the assessment year 2005-2006. The appellant/Revenue has not placed on record any material and evidence to show and negate the factual finding of the Tribunal that sales incentive was not payable on the basis of the performance in the last 15 months. This factual finding is not specifically challenged as incorrect or wrong by relying on any document or correspondence exchanged between the respondent-assessee and the Assessing Officer or the dealers. Factual finding is not perverse and cannot be regarded as absurd only on the ground of qualifying note of the auditor. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of expenditure claim for prior period

The High Court judgment pertains to an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to the disallowance of a claim of expenditure amounting to ?7.75 crore by the Assessing Officer. The key issue in this case is whether the expenditure claimed by the respondent-assessee relates to a prior period and was not incurred during the relevant assessment year of 2005-2006. The Revenue argued that the auditor's note indicating the expenditure as prior period expenditure should be relied upon, while the respondent-assessee contended that the expenditure was related to the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal found that the sales incentive payment was for a specific period ending on 30.6.2004, which falls within the assessment year 2005-2006. The Court emphasized that the auditor's opinion, although relevant, is not conclusive and binding, and should be considered along with other evidence. The Court cited a Gujarat High Court case to support the view that a qualified opinion in an audit report does not automatically lead to adverse consequences for the assessee. The Court upheld the Tribunal's factual finding that the sales incentive was payable during the relevant assessment year, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

The judgment highlights the importance of factual findings in tax assessments and the need to consider all relevant evidence, including auditor opinions, in determining the allowability of expenditures. It clarifies that an auditor's qualification does not automatically invalidate a claim and emphasizes the need for a holistic assessment based on all available material. The Court's decision underscores the significance of specific facts and timelines in determining the eligibility of expenses for deduction, ensuring a fair and reasoned approach in tax disputes.