2012 (6) TMI 153 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - ad-hoc disallowance - the assessee had shut down business more than five years back and also the fact that these workers such as fitters, carpenters, electricians, etc., are not stationery in a given address and pleadings of the assessee expressing her difficulties on the facts and circumstances of the case, to produce evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be made if the disallowance is restricted to Rs. 2,00,000 on ad-hoc basis, as the fact that the assessee would have been incurred expenditure cannot be disputed - assessee s appeal is partly allowed.

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of the delay.
2. Disallowance of supervision charges by the Assessing Officer.
3. Confirmation of the disallowance by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Arguments presented by the assessee regarding the disallowance.
5. Arguments presented by the Revenue opposing the assessee's contentions.
6. Decision of the Appellate Tribunal on the disallowance of supervision charges.

Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of the delay
The appeal was filed with a delay of ten days, for which the assessee provided an affidavit explaining the reasons. After reviewing the explanation and hearing both parties, the Tribunal concluded that the delay was due to sufficient cause and decided to condone the delay.

Issue 2: Disallowance of supervision charges by the Assessing Officer
The Assessing Officer disallowed supervision charges amounting to Rs. 8,50,000 in the assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed this disallowance, leading the assessee to appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue 3: Confirmation of the disallowance by the Commissioner (Appeals)
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance of supervision charges, disregarding the details, documents, and explanations provided by the assessee regarding the payment of supervision charges.

Issue 4: Arguments presented by the assessee regarding the disallowance
The assessee's representative argued that the disallowance was reduced by Rs. 2,00,000 by the Assessing Officer in a rectification order under section 154, which was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The representative highlighted that confirmations and details were submitted for other payments as well, emphasizing the difficulty in producing evidence due to the business being discontinued five years ago.

Issue 5: Arguments presented by the Revenue opposing the assessee's contentions
The Revenue's representative contended that the burden of proof regarding the supervision charges was not discharged by the assessee. They pointed out that the parties or complete addresses related to the payments were not produced by the assessee, and thus supported the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 6: Decision of the Appellate Tribunal on the disallowance of supervision charges
After considering the submissions and evidence presented by both parties, the Tribunal held that the assessee should receive relief on certain issues related to supervision charges. They acknowledged the burden of proof not being discharged for a balance figure of Rs. 5,50,000. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 2,00,000 on an ad-hoc basis, considering the circumstances and difficulties faced by the assessee in producing evidence. As a result, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed by the Tribunal.

← Previous Next →