2012 (12) TMI 57 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act Held that - Assessing Officer has not pointed out the payment made to the specified persons is excessive and unreasonable - No comparative figure was given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order - there was no occasion to invoke Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act - Assessing Officer had made only adhoc disallowance under the said provision without pointing out how the payments made to the specified persons were excessive or unreasonable In favor of assessee Addition on account of unexplained creditors under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act Held that - Even after the remand of the proceedings before the Assessing Officer, he was unable to bring any material on record to show that the liability had ceased - by virtue of limitation, the liability cannot be said to have ceased. The Assessing Officer was not able to establish that liability had ceased or that the creditors were bogus. Even if the creditors were not genuine, addition could not be made under the year in consideration - even though the amount initially was not taxable in the year of receipt, the amount changed its character when it became the assessee s own money because of limitation or by any such statutory or contractual right addition deleted

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 1 - Addition under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act:
The revenue appealed against the Tribunal's decision to delete an addition of Rs.36.62 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) had earlier deleted this addition, which the Tribunal upheld. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not provide evidence to show that the payments were excessive or unreasonable, leading to the deletion of the adhoc disallowance. The High Court found that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had properly evaluated the evidence and concluded that Section 40A(2)(b) was not applicable due to the lack of justification for the disallowance. The Court held that the issue was a matter of evidence evaluation, and no legal question arose.

Issue 2 - Addition under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act:
Regarding the addition of Rs.2.55 lacs under Section 41(1) of the Act, the CIT(A) had deleted the addition based on the decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. The Assessing Officer failed to prove that the liability had ceased, even after a remand. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that there were valid reasons for deleting the additions. The revenue contended that the liability had ceased due to the lapse of the recovery period. However, the Court agreed with the CIT(A)'s analysis, stating that the Assessing Officer did not establish the cessation of liability or the creditors being bogus. The Court referred to legal precedents emphasizing that a debtor's unilateral act does not automatically extinguish a liability, and the creditor must agree to remission or discharge. The Court differentiated the facts from the case cited by the revenue, highlighting that the money in question had become the assessee's own due to specific circumstances. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the Tax Appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal in both issues. The Court emphasized the importance of evaluating evidence in tax matters and clarified the legal principles regarding the cessation of liabilities under the Income Tax Act.