2019 (10) TMI 184 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 40A(2)(b) - HELD THAT - As could be seen in course of assessment proceedings the assessee has furnished certain details. However, it could not furnish the log book to show the usage of the motorcar. Similarly, the assessee could not bring sufficient material on record to show that the telephone was not used for personal purpose. In such circumstances, part disallowance out of the motorcar and telephone expenses have to be sustained as personal use of the motor car and telephone cannot be ruled out. Insofar as the sale promotion and travel expenses are concerned, as per the Assessing Officer s own admission, the assessee had submitted the details of such expenses. Therefore, without making necessary enquiry to prove that the expenditure claimed by the assessee under these two heads is not genuine or unverifiable, the Assessing Officer cannot disallow a part of it purely on ad hoc basis. Therefore, in our view, no disallowance out of sales promotion and travelling expenses are called for. In view of the aforesaid, we sustain the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer out of motor care and telephone expenses

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act
2. Ad-hoc disallowance of various expenses debited to the Profit & Loss account

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest Expenditure
The appeals filed by the assessee challenged the disallowance of interest expenditure under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The Assessing Officer found the interest paid on unsecured loans availed from related parties at 15% to be unreasonable compared to the market rate. Consequently, the interest expenditure was restricted to 12% per annum, resulting in disallowances in the respective assessment years. The assessee contended that no material demonstrated the unreasonableness of the interest rate paid, citing past assessments where no disallowances were made. The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence that the payment was excessive or unreasonable concerning the market rate. It was emphasized that the rate of interest on unsecured loans could be higher due to the absence of security, as supported by relevant case laws. Therefore, the tribunal allowed the appeals, deleting the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 2: Ad-hoc Disallowance of Various Expenses
The second issue involved an ad-hoc disallowance of expenses debited to the Profit & Loss account, including telephone, motor car, sales promotion, and travel expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed 10% of the total expenses claimed, suspecting personal elements in the expenditures. The tribunal upheld the disallowance for motor car and telephone expenses due to insufficient evidence, such as the absence of a motorcar log book and proof that the telephone was not used for personal purposes. However, it was noted that the sales promotion and travel expenses were adequately supported by the assessee, and no evidence of being non-genuine was presented. Consequently, the tribunal sustained the disallowance for motor car and telephone expenses but deleted the disallowance for sales promotion and travel expenses. The appeals were partly allowed on this issue.

In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed all the appeals, addressing the issues of interest expenditure disallowance and ad-hoc disallowance of various expenses debited to the Profit & Loss account. The tribunal emphasized the importance of objective assessments and evidence in determining the reasonableness of expenditures, ultimately leading to the decisions in favor of the assessee.