2013 (2) TMI 374 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenditure incurred for performing the Akhand Path - assessee was following mixed system of accounting - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that - CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal have returned the findings of fact relying upon the judgment of CIT v. Realest & Services Ltd. (2008 (5) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT) that method of accounting following consistently should not be disturbed because it was incorrect unless it could be shown that change in the method of accounting would result in gain for the Revenue. Both has recorded finding that no useful purpose will be served by changing the method when net result of excluding the receipts pertaining to paths performed in the earlier years would be reduction of the income of the present assessment year without adding to the income to the same or larger extent in the income for paths booked in the subsequent years. No substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenditure incurred for performing the Akhand Path under different accounting methods.
2. Deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) for disallowance of expenditure for performing the Akhand Path.

Issue 1: Disallowance of Expenditure under Different Accounting Methods:
The High Court addressed whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,60,300 made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of expenditure incurred for performing the Akhand Path. The Tribunal and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on the principle that a consistent method of accounting should not be disturbed unless it results in a gain for the Revenue, citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Realest & Services Ltd. The findings emphasized that changing the accounting method would reduce the income of the present assessment year without adding to the income for paths booked in subsequent years. Consequently, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in this regard.

Issue 2: Deletion of Addition by the A.O.:
The second issue involved whether the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,60,300 made by the A.O. for disallowance of expenditure incurred for performing the Akhand Path. The A.O. had raised concerns about specific defects in the receipts issued for the expenditure, noting that several receipts did not carry any particular remarks regarding the purpose for which they were issued. The A.O. found that the assessee failed to prove that all the receipts were for the performance of the Akhand Path. However, the ITAT, supported by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), found no specific defects and subsequently deleted the addition. As a result, the High Court upheld the decision of the ITAT, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it did not find any substantial question of law arising for consideration. The judgment highlighted the importance of consistent accounting methods and the burden of proof in establishing the purpose of expenditures, ultimately leading to the deletion of the addition made by the A.O.