2021 (5) TMI 471 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed overseas deposits - Disallowance of corresponding business expenditure @70% - initiation of Section 153A proceedings - HELD THAT - Neither the assessee has been able to substantiate all the corresponding expenses incurred abroad as wholly and exclusively for his preaching activity business nor the Assessing authority as well as the CIT(A) have taken any basis for the impugned estimation @30% only. We keep in mind all these peculiar facts and circumstances more particularly the fact that such religion congregations indeed involve day to day running expenses and hold that a lumpsum disallowance of 50% of the expenses in all these assessment years would meet the ends of justice (including 30% already made) with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in other case. AO is directed to allow 50% of the assessee s expenses claimed in consequential computation as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing therefore. Disallowance of overseas payment made to Shri Aashish Thomas in the nature of AED 36501 - We notice from a perusal of the corresponding assessment order dt.17-03-2016 that the assessee failed to substantiate the same as running business expenditure which has already been allowed @50%. We thus confirm the impugned payment disallowance

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Additions to income based on foreign bank deposits.
3. Credit for income declared in the USA.
4. Addition of Fixed Deposit (FD) amount held in the USA.
5. Addition of amounts given to a third party.
6. Protective addition of undisclosed income.
7. Double addition of bank account credits.
8. Disallowance of expenses related to preaching activities.
9. Disallowance of overseas payment.
10. Penalty for undisclosed global income.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The Tribunal noted that there was a 52-day delay in filing the appeals, attributed to the assessee's foreign visits. The Department did not rebut this claim. Consequently, the delay was condoned due to circumstances beyond the assessee’s control.

2. Additions Based on Foreign Bank Deposits:
The assessee contested the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for various assessment years, arguing that the AO had wrongly added amounts based on deposits in foreign bank accounts. The AO had estimated 30% of the deposits as expenses and 70% as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found that neither party provided a concrete basis for these estimations. Therefore, it directed that 50% of the expenses be allowed, with the remaining 50% treated as undisclosed income.

3. Credit for Income Declared in the USA:
The assessee argued that income declared in the USA should be credited. The Tribunal examined Article 25 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the USA, which allows for a deduction of taxes paid in the USA, not the income declared. Since no taxes were paid in the USA for most years, the Tribunal rejected the claim for those years, allowing only partial credit for the years taxes were paid.

4. Addition of FD Amount Held in the USA:
For AY 2009-10, the assessee contended that an FD amount of ?21,73,665/- held in the USA from 2005-06 should not be included in the block assessment. The Tribunal found that the evidence provided did not substantiate the claim that the FD was from an earlier period and upheld the AO’s addition.

5. Addition of Amounts Given to a Third Party:
For AY 2009-10, the assessee argued that an addition of ?1,26,500/- given to Anil Mathew should not be treated as income. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the deposits in the account had already been considered as income, and deleted the addition.

6. Protective Addition of Undisclosed Income:
For AY 2014-15, the AO had made a protective addition of ?6,96,07,556/- as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found that this amount had already been taxed in the case of M/s. International Outreach and deleted the protective addition in the assessee’s case.

7. Double Addition of Bank Account Credits:
For AY 2014-15, the assessee contended that the AO had made a double addition of ?9,04,741/-. The Tribunal found that there was no separate account for the additional amount and deleted the double addition.

8. Disallowance of Expenses Related to Preaching Activities:
The Tribunal noted that the AO had allowed only 30% of the expenses related to the assessee’s preaching activities. Given the nature of the activities, the Tribunal directed that 50% of the expenses be allowed, with the remaining 50% treated as undisclosed income.

9. Disallowance of Overseas Payment:
The assessee failed to substantiate an overseas payment of ?6,77,094/- to Shri Aashish Thomas as a business expense. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance.

10. Penalty for Undisclosed Global Income:
For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal noted that the penalty was based on the addition of undisclosed global income after allowing only 30% of expenses. Since the Tribunal had already directed that 50% of the expenses be allowed, it directed the AO to restrict the penalty to 50% of the undisclosed income.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee’s appeals, directing the AO to allow 50% of the expenses related to preaching activities and to make necessary adjustments in the penalty and additions accordingly. The protective addition and double addition were deleted, while other claims were rejected based on the evidence and provisions of the DTAA.

← Previous Next →