2021 (8) TMI 874 - AT - Income Tax

Addition in respect of the Supervisory and Risk Management expenses - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - CIT(A) holding the issue will be decided in the appeal of sister concern and held that in instant case the main question was that expenditure should be capitalized or not and from the fact discussed, it is clear that expenditure is not required to be capitalized and held that finding of AO that the expenditure should be capitalized cannot be accepted and granted a relief to the assessee. AR stated that in preceding year and in succeeding year same expenses were allowed in the case of the assessee. On the other hand, Ld. DR did not have anything to controvert the arguments of the assessee. In our considered opinion principle of consistency applies and in such case addition cannot be made and we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the revenue and we are of the opinion that CIT(A) has passed detailed and reasoned order and same does not required any kind of interference at our end. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Nature of receipt against termination of lease agreement - taxable under the head income from other sources or income from house property or not taxable as capital receipt - CIT(A) confirming the finding of the AO for treating the amount received on termination of lease agreement - HELD THAT - Assessee preferred first statutory appeal before CIT(A) who confirmed action of the AO holding that appellant could not give any justification regarding claim of standard deduction - the receipt is capital receipt then why the appellant had claimed standard deduction. In this case appellant had shown it as revenue receipt under the head income from house property and claimed the standard deduction. Appellant has submitted that it is a capital receipt but the appellant itself has shown it as revenue receipt and claimed standard deduction. So in such circumstances, we confirm the finding of the lower authorities and do not want to interfere in the order passed by the CIT(A). Lower authorities have passed detailed and reasoned order same does not require any kind of interference at our end. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Supervisory and Risk Management expenses
2. Treatment of compensation received on termination of lease agreement

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of Supervisory and Risk Management expenses
The case involved cross-appeals by the assessee and the revenue regarding the addition of ?4,33,06,842 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in respect of Supervisory and Risk Management expenses claimed by the assessee. The assessee, an insurance broker, had earned gross brokerage income and claimed these expenses paid to sister concerns. The AO disallowed the expenses as the assessee failed to justify the claim during assessment proceedings. However, the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee, noting that the sister concern was also paying tax on the same rate, and the issue of genuineness was doubted in the case of the sister concern. The CIT(A) held that the expenses need not be capitalized and rejected the AO's finding. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the principle of consistency and dismissing the revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Treatment of compensation received on termination of lease agreement
The assessee claimed standard deduction on compensation received on termination of a lease agreement, which the AO disallowed, adding it to the total income. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action, stating that the appellant failed to justify the standard deduction claim on a capital receipt. Despite the appellant's argument that it was a capital receipt, the CIT(A) upheld the decision, considering the appellant's initial treatment as a revenue receipt. The Appellate Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities' detailed and reasoned orders, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.

In conclusion, both appeals were dismissed, with the Appellate Tribunal upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) in both cases, emphasizing detailed reasoning and lack of grounds for interference. The judgment was pronounced on August 19, 2021.