2019 (11) TMI 1335 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus expenditure - addition @20% - assessee has not able to prove that these expenses are wholly and exclusively incurred for the business of the assessee - HELD THAT - We concur with the view of the A.O. as well as the ld. CIT(A) that when the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence in support of the expenses as well as in support of the explanation that he was having any arrangement with the drivers to pay them a fixed amount on account of fuel expenses. Since all these expenses are otherwise essential for carrying out the business activity by the assessee, therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be considered as absolutely bogus or falls. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the disallowances made by the A.O. at 20% appears to be on higher side and excessive, therefore, the same is restricted to 10%. Appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of expenses by the Assessing Officer (AO) for power & fuel, repair & machinery, wages, conveyance, telephone, and other expenses claimed by the assessee.

Analysis:
The assessee, engaged in distribution business, filed a return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13, declaring total income of ?5,48,820. The AO disallowed expenses totaling ?5,59,287, including power & fuel, repair & machinery, wages, conveyance, telephone, and other expenses. The assessee contended that expenses were reasonable and essential for business operations, but lacked supporting evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision due to lack of evidence.

The assessee's representative argued before the Tribunal that expenses were genuine and incurred for business purposes. The fixed amount for fuel expenses was part of a contractual understanding with drivers. The assessee employed six drivers at a reasonable wage of ?12,000 per month per vehicle. Other expenses were incurred for daily business operations. However, the AO contended that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to support the expenses, justifying the disallowances.

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee did not produce bills or vouchers for the expenses, the AO accepted that the expenses were not bogus. However, due to lack of evidence proving the expenses were wholly and exclusively for business purposes, the AO disallowed 20% of the claimed expenses. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, stating that without vouchers, it couldn't be ascertained if expenses were business-related. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 10%, acknowledging the necessity of the expenses for business activities.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, reducing the disallowance from 20% to 10% of the claimed expenses. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining proper documentation to substantiate business expenses and upheld the principle that expenses must be wholly and exclusively for business purposes to be allowable.