2021 (8) TMI 8 - AT - Income Tax

Estimated Disallowance of Revenue Expenditure - CIT(A) has sustained the disallowances partly on adhoc basis - HELD THAT - It is settled law that disallowances cannot be made on surmises and conjectures The power of Ld.CIT(A) are co-terminus. with that of.AO. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not making the enquiry, he was of the opinion should have been conducted. Moreover, the reasoning that the expenditure incurred on building repair, repair maintenance and labour charges, in this regard bring about an expenditure of capital nature on an adhoc basis is not sustainable on the basis of material brought on record. This is more so, when assessee has already capitalized ₹ 59,22,000/- in this regard. Hence, we set aside the order of authorities below and allow the assessee s ground.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Revenue Expenditure
2. Proper Enquiry by AO
3. Adhoc Basis of Disallowance

Disallowance of Revenue Expenditure:
The case involved an appeal by the Assessee against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of revenue expenditure amounting to ?26,40,199. The Assessee had undertaken a major refurbishment of its business premises, with the AO observing that the expenditure was capitalized. The AO directed the Assessee to provide details of the nature of repairs and maintenance, along with labor charges debited under manufacturing expenses. The Assessee had undertaken renovation involving civil work, structural glazing, woodwork, false ceiling, waterproofing, plumbing, electrical wiring, and fittings, among others. The AO disallowed a total of ?46,40,199, allowing depreciation of 10% and initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) found the AO's enquiry inadequate and sustained the disallowance on an adhoc basis.

Proper Enquiry by AO:
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had criticized the AO for not conducting a proper enquiry. It emphasized that disallowances cannot be made based on surmises and conjectures. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in not conducting the necessary enquiry that was expected. Moreover, the Tribunal found the reasoning behind treating the expenditure as capital in nature on an adhoc basis to be unsustainable, especially when the Assessee had already capitalized a significant amount. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and allowed the Assessee's appeal.

Adhoc Basis of Disallowance:
The Tribunal further highlighted that the power of the CIT(A) is co-terminus with that of the AO. It emphasized that the CIT(A) had made the disallowance partly on an adhoc basis without proper enquiry. The Tribunal found that the reasoning behind treating the expenditure as capital in nature without sufficient material on record was not sustainable. Considering these factors, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee, allowing the appeal and setting aside the previous orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the disallowance of revenue expenditure, the necessity of a proper enquiry by the AO, and the unsustainable nature of the adhoc disallowance. The Tribunal ultimately sided with the Assessee, emphasizing the importance of thorough investigation and proper justification for any disallowances made.