2024 (8) TMI 492 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s. 37(1) - payment of professional fees paid to doctors - HELD THAT - AO has not doubted the genuineness of these payments. He stated that no documentary evidence has been submitted by the assessee in support of its claim that the doctors have worked in the capacity as consultants, researchers or advisors. Whereas as noted that the assessee has already provided all the details like logbook along with agreements with different doctors, summary sheets of professional fees paid, copies of scientific broachers, training manuals and research papers. CIT(A) has also noted that the facts are identical and followed the decision of tribunal while deleting the disallowance. We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A), so as to interfere with his decision. Therefore, this ground of Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D - Revenue argued that the assessee-company did not provide any fund flow statement evidencing the use of own funds - HELD THAT -The assessee was having sufficient funds in hand on the date of investment, as it is evident from the bank statement where proceeds of issuance of share capital were deposited and investments in mutual funds was made, we are in agreement with the decision of the CIT(A) s decision to delete the disallowance u/s 14A on account of interest expenses. This ground number 2 of the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Addition u/s. 14A on account of administrative expenses - AO s adoption of Rule 8D proves mechanical. Most of the judicial precedents, including those relied on by the assessee, underscore the importance of procedural fairness and due diligence by AO and also held that the AO has to objectively examine assessee s claim. We also note that the Ld.CIT(A) also has not recorded his reason while confirming the addition on account of administrative expenses. We are of the opinion that the CIT(A) and the AO both have failed in recording dissatisfaction before applying third component of rule 8D relating to administrative expenses.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of professional fees paid to doctors under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, on account of interest and administrative expenses.
3. Delay in payment of Employee contribution to Provident Fund (PF).

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Professional Fees Paid to Doctors
Grounds of Revenue's Appeal:
- The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,07,28,000 made on account of disallowance of professional fees paid to doctors under Section 37(1) of the Act, arguing that the payments were gratuitous and not substantiated by documentary evidence.

Tribunal's Findings:
- The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided detailed evidence, including agreements and confirmations from doctors, proving the genuineness of the transactions.
- The professional fees were aligned with business exigencies and aimed at promoting the company's pharmaceutical products.
- The MCI guidelines permit doctors to work with pharmaceutical companies in an advisory capacity, and the CBDT Circular No. 5/2012 applies to gifts and hospitality, not to professional fees for services rendered.
- The Tribunal concluded that the professional fees paid did not violate the MCI guidelines or the CBDT Circular.
- The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, finding no infirmity in the order.

Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D
Grounds of Revenue's Appeal:
- The Revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 36,30,382 on account of interest expenditure, arguing that the assessee did not provide a fund flow statement to prove the use of own funds.

Tribunal's Findings:
- The Tribunal noted that the AO had a predetermined thought of disallowance under Section 14A, as evident from the show-cause notice.
- The assessee provided bank statements and other documents proving that the investments were made from own funds and no exempt income was earned.
- The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the AO to record specific dissatisfaction with the assessee's computation before invoking Rule 8D under Section 14A.
- The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 36,30,382 on account of interest expenses.

Assessee's Cross Objection:
- The assessee contested the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 14,85,395 on account of administrative expenses.

Tribunal's Findings:
- The Tribunal noted that the AO and the CIT(A) both failed to record dissatisfaction before applying Rule 8D for administrative expenses.
- The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross objection, stating that the AO's adoption of Rule 8D was mechanical and lacked procedural fairness.

Issue 3: Delay in Payment of Employee Contribution to PF
- The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs. 8,27,091 under Section 36(1) of the Act, concluding that the payment was made before the due date, including grace days allowed.
- The Revenue did not contest this deletion in the appeal.

Conclusion:
- The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's cross objection, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all contested grounds.
- The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and due diligence by the AO in recording dissatisfaction before making disallowances under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.