9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1178 - HC - Income TaxDeduction of compensation payment u/s 37(1) - assessee had entered into an agreement for purchase of an immovable property - there were number of charges and impediments in the title to the property and to clear this, the Assessee had to incur considerable expenditure - assessee could not provide the land then an MOU was executed to repay the principal with lumpsum compensation - CIT (A) held that the original MOU with the trust and the cancellation deed were executed on the same day on a stamp paper which was by way of an afterthought - HELD THAT - We find that with respect to the Assessee s claim of expenditure of ₹ 6,00,60,000/ , the Assessing Officer having rejected claim as being non genuine, the CIT (A) further examined the materials on record. He noted that apparently, the original MOU with the trust and the cancellation deed were executed on the same day on a stamp paper which was by way of an afterthought. He further highlighted the discrepancies emerging from the record and observed that out of the opening balance of ₹ 7.3 Crores received from the said trust, an amount of ₹ 1.64 Crores was adjusted as advance for the land in the year under consideration. It was noted that though such advance of ₹ 1.64 Crores was given on the basis of the MOU dated 26/02/2007, the MOU itself does not mention such payment. The two revenue authorities and the Tribunal concurrently came to the conclusion that the claim of expenditure was not genuine. There were major discrepancies in the accounts and the documents presented by the Assessee in relation to such claim. We do not find there is any question of law arising. It is true that once in course of a business an expenditure is shown to have been incurred for the purpose of business, the Assessing Officer would not substitute his judgment for that of the Assessee in making such expenditure. However in the present case, the very genuineness of the expenditure has been rejected - No question of law arises - Appeal is dismissed. Disallowance of expenditure u/s 37(1) - The revenue authorities and the Tribunal concurrently held that the payments were not genuine. Reference to unregistered document was only by way of additional ground to reject the transaction. It was found that the entire transaction was bogus, was by way of afterthought and created in order to reduce the Assessee's tax liability. No question of law arises - Appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Taxation of compensation amounting to ?6,00,60,000/-. 2. Deductibility of the compensation amount under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Disallowance of compensation paid to remove encumbrances on land. 4. Verification of the genuineness of the agreement by the Tribunal. 5. Assessing Officer's failure to use powers under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Tribunal's failure to provide cogent reasons for rejecting the expenses claimed. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Taxation of Compensation Amounting to ?6,00,60,000/-: The Assessee challenged the taxation of ?6,00,60,000/- paid as compensation, arguing it should not be taxed twice—once in the hands of the recipient (BRACT) and again in the hands of the Appellant. The court found that the genuineness of the expenditure was in question. The Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal all concluded that the expenditure was not genuine, citing discrepancies in the accounts and documents presented by the Assessee. The Tribunal noted, "The transaction by the assessee with BRACT is merely an eyewash and an attempt to circumvent the provisions of the Act." 2. Deductibility of the Compensation Amount Under Section 37(1): The Assessee claimed the compensation amount as deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the authorities rejected this claim, stating that the expenditure was not genuine. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal highlighted that the original MOU and the cancellation deed were executed on the same day, suggesting an afterthought to justify the compensation. The Tribunal stated, "The discrepancies highlighted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are very relevant and material." 3. Disallowance of Compensation Paid to Remove Encumbrances on Land: The Assessee argued that the compensation paid to remove encumbrances on the land should be allowed. However, the authorities found that the payments were not genuine. The CIT(A) noted that the Assessee failed to substantiate with reliable evidence that the parties had existing rights in the property. The Tribunal supported this view, stating, "The entire transaction was bogus, was by way of afterthought and created in order to reduce the Assessee's tax liability." 4. Verification of the Genuineness of the Agreement by the Tribunal: The Assessee contended that the Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, should have verified the genuineness of the agreement. The Tribunal, however, found significant discrepancies in the documents and transactions, leading to the conclusion that the expenditures were not genuine. The Tribunal observed, "In the present case, the very genuineness of the expenditure has been rejected." 5. Assessing Officer's Failure to Use Powers Under Section 133(6): The Assessee argued that the Assessing Officer did not use his powers under Section 133(6) to verify the authenticity of the transactions. The authorities, however, found sufficient evidence to conclude that the expenditures were not genuine without needing to invoke Section 133(6). The Tribunal noted, "The payments have to be corroborated with cogent evidence which is missing in the transactions in the present case." 6. Tribunal's Failure to Provide Cogent Reasons for Rejecting the Expenses Claimed: The Assessee claimed that the Tribunal did not provide cogent reasons for rejecting the expenses. However, the Tribunal and the CIT(A) provided detailed reasons, including discrepancies in the agreements and the lack of reliable evidence to support the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal remarked, "The other peripheral transactions have been induced to reduce the tax liability." Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no question of law arising from the case. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities and the Tribunal that the expenditures claimed by the Assessee were not genuine. The court emphasized that the discrepancies and lack of reliable evidence justified the disallowance of the claimed expenses. The judgment concluded, "In the result, the Appeal is dismissed."
|
