2022 (6) TMI 1100 - AT - Income Tax

Entertainment tax subsidy - capital or revenue receipt - disallowance u/s. 37 - HELD THAT - In the assessment order the AO has observed that since the entertainment subsidy has been claimed as capital receipt by the assessee, the assessee must have incurred certain administrative Operational expenditure for the said capital receipt. Therefore, AO made ad hoc disallowance u/s. 37 @ 10% of expenditure. However, the said disallowance was not added by AO in the assessment order because the AO has added entire entertainment subsidy as capital receipt. This is an ad hoc disallowance. AO has not pointed out any specific expenditure which was in the nature of revenue expenditure. AO cannot presume it. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the said disallowance. Accordingly, the assessee's Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 are allowed. Disallowance of 10% of expenditure out of Travelling, Conveyance, repairs and maintenance - Addition on the ground that these expenditures were in cash, no evidence filed to prove it - HELD THAT - It is important to understand here that the ld. CIT(A) has given a finding that many of these expenditures were not supported by bills. Before us also the Assessee has not claimed that all the expenditures were supported by bills. The onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the expenditure and to prove that the expenditure were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee, In this case the assessee has not filed any documents to prove that the expenditure were wholly and exclusively for the business and has also not filed bills. Therefore, we uphold the disallowance made by the AO.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Treatment of entertainment tax subsidy as revenue or capital receipt.
2. Disallowance of expenditure related to entertainment tax subsidy.

Issue 1: Treatment of entertainment tax subsidy as revenue or capital receipt:
The appeals were filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the treatment of entertainment tax subsidy for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue contended that the subsidy should be considered a revenue receipt, while the Assessee argued it should be treated as a capital receipt. The Revenue raised concerns about the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the pending appeal before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner, following the High Court's ruling, which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the entertainment tax subsidy was deemed a capital receipt. Consequently, the Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the Revenue's appeal was ultimately dismissed.

Issue 2: Disallowance of expenditure related to entertainment tax subsidy:
The Assessee's appeal focused on the disallowance of specific expenditures related to the entertainment tax subsidy. The Assessing Officer had made an ad hoc disallowance under section 37, assuming that the Assessee had incurred administrative and operational expenses for the capital receipt. However, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete this disallowance, as no specific revenue expenditure was identified, and the disallowance was deemed ad hoc. Regarding another disallowance related to specific expenses, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, as the Assessee failed to provide evidence supporting the genuineness and business-related nature of the expenses. As a result, the Assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee regarding the treatment of the entertainment tax subsidy as a capital receipt. The Tribunal also addressed the disallowance of specific expenditures, allowing some claims while upholding others. The final decision was a partial allowance of the Assessee's appeal and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.