2022 (6) TMI 1101 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenditure u/s 37 - HELD THAT - AO has purely made addition by making ad-hoc disallowance out of the expenditure @ of 10%. AO has not been specified at what vouchers were not available and what was the amount of such vouchers, therefore, the finding of the AO is purely ad-hoc and based on conjectures and surmises. Such findings of the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. Hence, the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to delete the disallowance. Appeal of assessee allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses due to non-availability of vouchers.
2. Ad-hoc disallowance of expenses by the Assessing Officer.
3. Partial allowance of appeal by the CIT(A).
4. Appeal before the Tribunal against the partial disallowance.

Issue 1: Disallowance of expenses due to non-availability of vouchers:
The appeal was against the order by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, sustaining a part of the addition made by the Ld. ITO due to non-availability of vouchers to support claimed expenses. The appellant argued that the expenses were solely for business purposes, TDS had been deducted, and the books were audited without deficiencies. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's addition to be ad-hoc without specifying missing vouchers, based on conjectures, and directed the deletion of the disallowance.

Issue 2: Ad-hoc disallowance of expenses by the Assessing Officer:
The Assessing Officer had made an ad-hoc disallowance of expenses at 10% without specifying the vouchers that were unavailable. The Tribunal held that such findings were arbitrary and not sustainable, as they lacked specific details. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance.

Issue 3: Partial allowance of appeal by the CIT(A):
The CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal by sustaining a portion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The appellant contested this decision, arguing that the disallowance was unjustified, lacked logic, and was based on lumpsum amounts without proper details. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's arguments and directed the deletion of the sustained addition.

Issue 4: Appeal before the Tribunal against the partial disallowance:
The appellant had appealed before the Tribunal challenging the partial disallowance sustained by the CIT(A). Despite no representation during the hearing, written arguments were submitted. The Tribunal considered the arguments, found the Assessing Officer's approach ad-hoc, and ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and directing the deletion of the disallowance.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the decision of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, directing the deletion of the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses due to non-availability of vouchers. The judgment emphasized the importance of specific findings and details in such disallowances to ensure fairness and accuracy in assessments.