2025 (1) TMI 1122 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C - bogus expenditure as no supporting bills for such payments made u/s 194C to non-filers were furnished before the AO - HELD THAT - As on the basis of data available on the Departmental portal list of non-filers was found to whom payment had been made but who had not filed their income tax returns. Assessee was given the list of those non-filers and the onus to prove the genuineness of transactions with them vide notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act but no reply was filed by the to the notice issued. Thus it is not correct to state that the Ld. AO never asked for such details. A perusal of the details of non-filers shows that heavy payments were made to one individual Shri Phulchand Sharma at Rs. 1, 47, 60, 000/- and while the Ld. AO had invoked section 69C of the Act to make the addition however this was a case of the expenses not being verified and therefore the expenses claimed u/s 37(1) of the Act were liable to be disallowed as it could not be established in the absence of the vouchers that the expenditure was incurred for business purposes. It has been held in the case of P.K. Palanisamy Vs. N Arumugham and another 2009 (7) TMI 1311 - SUPREME COURT that it is a well settled principle of law that mentioning of wrong provision or non-mentioning of provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefore. Even though the provisions of section 69C of the Act were not applicable however since the primary evidence for the expenditure claimed was not produced before the Ld. AO nor the same could be produced before the Bench therefore some disallowance was called for on account of expenditure not being supported by vouchers. Hence it is considered appropriate to sustain the addition to the extent of 10% of the expenses disallowed by the Ld. AO for non-maintenance of the vouchers which was conveyed to the Ld. AR. Thus addition being 10% of the disallowed amount is hereby sustained and the rest of the addition is directed to be deleted. Hence Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal are partly allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the disallowance of Rs. 2,97,16,776/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act was justified.
Whether the non-filing of tax returns by the payees to whom payments were made under Section 194C impacts the genuineness of the claimed business expenses.
Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) followed the principles of natural justice in making the additions without asking for supporting bills during the assessment process.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 69C

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69C of the Income Tax Act allows for the addition of unexplained expenditure to the income of the assessee if the source of such expenditure is not satisfactorily explained.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that Section 69C focuses on the source of expenditure rather than its authenticity. The AO's addition was based on the non-verification of expenses due to the non-submission of bills.
Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee provided a list of payees with PAN numbers and TDS deductions but failed to provide detailed confirmations, ledgers, and bank statements.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted that the AO did not explicitly request the bills in the notices, which contradicted the principles of natural justice.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the assessee's argument that the non-filing of tax returns by payees should not affect the genuineness of expenses. The Tribunal also examined precedents where Section 69C was deemed inapplicable if expenses were recorded in regular books.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that while Section 69C was not applicable, some disallowance was warranted due to the lack of supporting vouchers. A 10% disallowance was deemed appropriate.

Issue 2: Non-Filing of Tax Returns by Payees

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The responsibility for filing tax returns lies with the individual taxpayers, and the failure of payees to file returns does not automatically render business expenses non-genuine.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the non-filing of tax returns by payees should not be used to question the genuineness of the appellant's business expenses.
Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee argued that the non-filing of tax returns by payees was beyond their control and should not impact the legitimacy of the transactions.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's position, highlighting that the genuineness of expenses should not be impugned solely due to the non-filing of returns by payees.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the AO's stance on the non-filing of returns but sided with the assessee's argument supported by relevant case laws.
Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the non-filing of tax returns by payees does not affect the genuineness of the appellant's business expenses.

Issue 3: Principles of Natural Justice

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the AO did not request the bills during the assessment process, which contradicted the principles of natural justice.
Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee argued that the AO's failure to request bills in the notices violated natural justice principles.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the AO's actions were inconsistent with natural justice.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the AO's position but ultimately sided with the assessee's argument regarding natural justice.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the AO's actions violated the principles of natural justice, warranting a reduction in the disallowed amount.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "Section 69C refers to the 'source of the expenditure' and not to the expenditure itself."
Core Principles Established: The non-filing of tax returns by payees does not automatically render business expenses non-genuine. The principles of natural justice require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal sustained a 10% disallowance of the expenses due to the lack of supporting vouchers, reducing the disallowed amount to Rs. 29,71,678/-. The rest of the addition was deleted, and the appeal was partly allowed.

← Previous Next →