2012 (7) TMI 722 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of unvouched expenses - total expenditure was Rs.24,56,543 but the AO made an ad hoc disallowance of Rs.5,00,000 without assigning any particular reasons. Therefore, its deletion by ld. CIT(A) is just and proper - AO made disallowance of Rs.5,00,000 with a finding to cover leakage in respect of unvouched other expenses, without assigning any reasonable basis or cause In favor of assessee Operation software expenses - revenue expense or capital Held that - Same operating expenditure was allowed as revenue expenditure in AY 2005-06 by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, as per principle of consistency, the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting this disallowance in the year under consideration i.e. 2006-07 In favor of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of unvouched expenses.
2. Treatment of operating software expenses as revenue expenditure.
3. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of unvouched expenses
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs.5,00,000 on account of unvouched other expenses during the assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO completed the assessment based on best judgment as the assessee failed to attend most of the proceedings. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed the assessee's appeal against this addition. The CIT(A) noted an increase in the Gross Profit of the assessee and found no conclusive proof or proper explanation for the disallowance. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO made the disallowance without any reasonable basis or cause. The ITAT found no perversity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue.

Issue 2: Treatment of operating software expenses
The AO disallowed the claim of Rs.5,00,000 on operating software expenses, considering it as capital expenditure. However, the CIT(A) allowed this claim, citing consistency with the previous year's decision where the same expenditure was treated as revenue expenditure. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A) that consistency should be maintained and dismissed ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue.

Issue 3: Grounds of appeal
The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue included challenges to the CIT(A)'s decisions on unvouched expenses and operating software expenses. The ITAT found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it, upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) on both issues.

In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions to delete the additions made by the AO regarding unvouched expenses and operating software expenses. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating it was devoid of merits.