2025 (2) TMI 293 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of 25% of total other expenses on an ad-hoc basis - assessee s failure to produce complete supporting documents during the assessment proceedings - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT - It is well settled by various judicial precedents that an ad-hoc disallowance without identifying specific defects is legally unsustainable. In the case of ACIT vs. Anu Bajaj 2024 (6) TMI 1208 - ITAT DELHI held that if relief is granted based on the AO s own remand report the Revenue is precluded from challenging the same before the Tribunal. DR has merely relied on the assessment order of the AO without providing any new arguments to support the disallowance. Since the AO s own remand report does not justify the ad-hoc addition we find that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance. Accordingly we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition - Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in law and on facts by admitting additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings, allegedly in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5,92,53,633/-, which was 25% of the total other expenses claimed by the assessee, without adequately considering the facts of the case.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Admission of Additional Evidence

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, governs the conditions under which additional evidence can be admitted during appellate proceedings. Section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act allows the appellate authority to call for further inquiry before disposing of an appeal.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not admit additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A. Instead, the CIT(A) exercised powers under Section 250(4) to call for a further inquiry, which involved forwarding the additional evidence to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification through a remand report.

Key evidence and findings: The AO's remand report confirmed the genuineness of most expenses after examining the additional evidence. The Tribunal noted that the AO had a full opportunity to verify the documents, which negated any violation of Rule 46A.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) followed the correct legal procedure by using Section 250(4) to ensure a thorough examination of the evidence, thereby not infringing upon Rule 46A.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that Rule 46A was violated, emphasizing the procedural correctness of the CIT(A)'s actions.

Conclusions: The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument regarding the violation of Rule 46A, and thus, Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Issue 2: Deletion of Disallowance

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 37 of the Income Tax Act pertains to the allowance of business expenditure. Judicial precedents establish that ad-hoc disallowances without specific defects are unsustainable.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the AO had made an ad-hoc disallowance of 25% of the total other expenses without identifying specific unverifiable transactions. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not reject the books of accounts, nor did the tax audit report highlight any discrepancies.

Key evidence and findings: The AO's remand report during appellate proceedings accepted several expenses as genuine and did not identify specific defects. The Tribunal noted that similar expenses were allowed in other years, indicating consistency.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that ad-hoc disallowances are unsustainable without specific defects, as supported by the decision in ACIT vs. Anu Bajaj, where relief based on the AO's remand report precludes further challenge by the Revenue.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the AO's assessment order but failed to provide new arguments to support the disallowance. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance justified.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, finding no infirmity in the order, and thus, Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's appeal was also rejected.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that "an ad-hoc disallowance without identifying specific defects is legally unsustainable" and that "if relief is granted based on the AO's own remand report, the Revenue is precluded from challenging the same before the Tribunal."

Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that additional evidence can be admitted under Section 250(4) without violating Rule 46A if the AO is given an opportunity for verification. It also underscores that ad-hoc disallowances require specific defects to be sustainable.

Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on both the admission of additional evidence and the deletion of the disallowance.

← Previous Next →