2021 (6) TMI 87 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of business loss - AO held that the intention of the assessee was only to set off the rental income against such business loss therefore, disallowed the business loss claimed by the assessee against the rental income - HELD THAT - Since the CIT(A) while deciding the issue against the assessee has followed the order for AY 2012-13 and since the Tribunal has already decided this issue in favour of the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13 2020 (2) TMI 1499 - ITAT DELHI therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for Assessment Year 2012-13, we set-aside the order to the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the business loss claimed by the assessee which includes an amount paid to the Managing Director. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of business loss and managerial remuneration.
2. Commercial expediency aspect disregarded.
3. Tax liability adjustment and double taxation concern.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Business Loss and Managerial Remuneration
The case involved an appeal against the disallowance of a business loss and managerial remuneration by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer disallowed the business loss of &8377; 41,44,219 claimed by the assessee against rental income, suspecting that the business activity was a mere facade to set off losses. The CIT(A) concurred with the Assessing Officer's view, noting the lack of evidence of actual business activity. The CIT(A) highlighted that the purchases were minimal, major sales were to a single party, and the remuneration paid to the director was connected to reducing tax liability, not genuine business purposes.

Issue 2: Commercial Expediency Aspect Disregarded
The CIT(A) disregarded the aspect of commercial expediency raised by the assessee, emphasizing that commercial expediency is relevant only when genuine business activities are undertaken. The CIT(A) found that the purchases from a sister concern were not for legitimate business reasons but to create an appearance of business activity. The CIT(A) concluded that the remuneration paid to the director was aimed at tax avoidance rather than being a valid business expense.

Issue 3: Tax Liability Adjustment and Double Taxation Concern
The assessee argued that the managerial remuneration was paid at the same tax rate as the company, thus no loss to revenue occurred. However, the CIT(A) rejected this argument, stating that both the company and the director are separate taxable entities. The Tribunal, in a similar case for AY 2012-13, had allowed the managerial remuneration as it found no diversion of funds for tax avoidance. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s decision and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the business loss claimed by the assessee, including the remuneration paid to the Managing Director.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, considering the precedent set in a similar case for AY 2012-13, where the disallowance was overturned. The decision highlighted the importance of genuine business activities, commercial expediency, and the proper assessment of tax liabilities to prevent tax avoidance schemes.