2021 (5) TMI 182 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of claim charges - AO during the course of assessment proceeding that it was in the business of transporting tea on behalf of the Tea Estates to the consignees and the transit loss in weight of consignments in the course of handling tea bags had to be borne by the assessee company - expenditure claimed by the assessee on claim charges however was mainly supported only by self made vouchers - HELD THAT - Disallowance out of claim charges was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) in assessee's own case for assessment year 2014-15 by relying inter alia on the decision of M/s. Ravi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 2005 (1) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT where it was held that the expenditure claimed by the assessee could not be reduced quantitatively when it was qualitatively found to be eligible for deduction. Keeping in view the ratio of the said decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and having regard to the facts of the case, hold that the ad hoc disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) out of claim charges is not sustainable and deleting the same - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of repairs and maintenance - AO Found that the said expenses involved petty amounts and the claim of the assessee was supported mainly through self made vouchers - As submitted on behalf of the assessee company before the authorities below as well as before the Tribunal, it has offices across 30 locations from where the business is conducted and the said offices, some of which are owned by the assessee and some taken on rent, are required to be maintained as offices, godowns and staff rooms and complete details of repairs and maintenance expenses incurred on the said premises used for the purpose of business were furnished before the AO and without pointing out any specific instances of unverifiable element therein, the disallowance of 10% made out of the said expenses on ad hoc basis is not sustainable - HELD THAT - Keeping in view the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Ravi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 2005 (1) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT and having regard to the facts of the case that the ad hoc disallowance of 10% out of repairs and maintenance expenses has been made by the AO without pointing out even a single specific instance of the unverifiable element involved therein, I am of the view that the said disallowance is not sustainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of claim charges
2. Disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of claim charges
The appellant, a transport company, filed an appeal against the disallowance of ?3,37,727 by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of claim charges. The appellant explained that the claim charges were incurred due to transit loss in weight of consignments while transporting tea. The AO disallowed the claim based on self-made vouchers and the possibility of inflated expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, noting a fair estimate by the AO to prevent errors and manipulation. The appellant argued that similar expenses in preceding and succeeding years were not disallowed. The ITAT referred to cases where disallowance without evidence was deemed incorrect and unsustainable in law. Relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions, the ITAT deleted the disallowance, emphasizing that eligible expenses should not be reduced quantitatively.

Issue 2: Disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses
The AO disallowed ?1,53,818 out of ?15,38,183 claimed by the appellant for repairs and maintenance, citing unverifiable expenses supported by self-made vouchers. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The appellant argued that the expenses were for maintaining offices, godowns, and staff rooms across 30 locations, with complete details provided to the AO. The ITAT found the ad hoc disallowance of 10% without specific instances of unverifiable elements unsustainable. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court decision, the ITAT deleted the disallowance, as no specific unverifiable elements were identified. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant was allowed.

In conclusion, the ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, deleting both the disallowance of claim charges and repairs and maintenance expenses. The judgments were based on the principle that disallowances should be supported by evidence and specific instances of unverifiable elements to be sustainable.