2020 (11) TMI 302 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowances on telephone and vehicle maintenance and business promotion expenses - allowable revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) or not? - HELD THAT - AO made the ad-hoc additions without reference to any specific instance where the said expenses were incurred for personal purpose. Such disallowance without pointing out any specific defect in the statutorily mandated audited books of the assessee, and with reference to any specific instances where the expenses have been incurred by the assessee not for business purposes, cannot be sustained. While respectfully following the reasoning in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2010-11 2017 (6) TMI 1309 - ITAT DELHI are of the considered opinion that the additions made by the Ld. AO by alleging that the said expenses are not related to the business of the assessee without bringing any evidence on record are bad in law and cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Ad-hoc disallowance of various expenses by the Assessing Officer.
2. Partial allowance of telephone expenses by the Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals.
3. Comparison with a previous Tribunal order in the assessee's own case.
4. Legal principles regarding ad-hoc disallowances without specific defects in audited books.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of ad-hoc disallowance of expenses including vehicle expenses, depreciation on cars, business promotion expenses, and telephone expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses at an ad-hoc rate of 10% based on the auditor's report's observations regarding the lack of log books for telephone and vehicle usage.

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals partially allowed the telephone expenses but restricted the disallowance to a certain amount. The appellant contended that the telephone and vehicle expenses were solely for business purposes and crucial for the firm's operations. The appellant cited a previous Tribunal order in their own case where similar disallowances were deleted, indicating consistency in treatment.

3. The Tribunal compared the observations and decisions in the appellant's case for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2014-15. The Tribunal noted that the disallowances were made on an estimate basis without specific instances of personal expenditure or non-admissible expenses under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowances in the previous case, emphasizing the importance of specific findings and justifications for disallowances.

4. Citing decisions from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and other Tribunal benches, the Tribunal reiterated that ad-hoc disallowances without specific defects in audited books and evidence of personal expenses not for business purposes are not sustainable. The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer without concrete evidence linking the expenses to personal use were legally unsound. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity of specific instances to justify disallowances.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal reasoning and principles applied by the Tribunal in addressing the issues raised in the appeal.