2021 (8) TMI 647 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenses made u/s.37(1) - disallowance of expenditure on adhoc basis made by the ld. AO by giving a categorical finding that the ld. AO had not even whispered in the assessment order as to how a particular expenditure of the assessee is excessive and not incurred for the purpose of business u/s.37(1) - HELD THAT - CIT(A) also observed that it is not the case of the ld. AO that the expenditure debited by the assessee are personal in nature. CIT(A) thereafter, relied on the decision in the case of J.J. Enterprises vs. CIT 2001 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT and proceeded to delete the adhoc disallowance made by the ld. AO. Before us none of the categorical findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) had been controverted by the Revenue. It is not in dispute that assessee had indeed earned business income in the form of service charges and same has been assessed as business income by the ld. AO. This itself goes to prove that assessee had indeed carried on business during the year. Once, it is accepted that assessee had carried on business during the year, and when the expenditure debited in the P L account are not doubted either on its genuineness or on its incurrence for the purpose of business of the assessee by the ld. AO, the expenditure thereon, claimed as deduction by the assessee would become allowable expenditure. It is not the case of the ld. AO that the expenditure claimed by the assessee are personal in nature or expenditure incurred were in the capital field. We further hold that the incurrence of business expenditure whether it is commensurate with the business receipts earned thereof is of absolutely no relevance to decide the allowability of business expenditure. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), granting relief to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of expenses under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal in ITA No.7889/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2011-12 was filed against the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai. The only issue to be decided was whether the disallowance of expenses made under section 37(1) of the Act was justified by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee company, engaged in various financial activities, filed a return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 showing a total loss. The ld. AO disallowed a significant portion of the expenditure claimed by the assessee as it was much higher than the income declared. The assessee argued that the expenditure was necessary for the business, even though business activity was limited. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance after finding that the expenditure was genuine and not personal in nature. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the business income was proven, and the expenditure was not questioned for its genuineness or purpose.

The assessee provided a detailed breakdown of the expenditure incurred, including rent, salaries, repairs, legal fees, and more. The genuineness of these expenses was not doubted by the ld. AO. The assessee explained that reduced service charges were due to a client's business closure in London, affecting the mark-up. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the adhoc disallowance by emphasizing that the expenses were not excessive or personal. Citing the decision in J.J. Enterprises vs. CIT, the ld. CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee. The Revenue did not challenge the findings, and it was acknowledged that the assessee conducted business during the year. The allowability of business expenditure was not dependent on the proportion to business receipts. The order granting relief to the assessee was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to delete the disallowance of expenses under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The detailed breakdown of expenses provided by the assessee, along with the genuineness and necessity of the expenditure for business purposes, led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the proportion of expenditure to business receipts does not impact the allowability of business expenses, as long as they are genuine and incurred for business purposes.