2013 (11) TMI 822 - AT - Income Tax

Onus on whom to substantiate an expense - Best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Income tax Act Disallowance of expenditure on estimate basis Held that - CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the burden was on the A.O. to bring on record some positive adverse material to show that the expenses claimed by the assessee to the extent of 20% were not genuine so as to justify the disallowance of such expenses - The burden was on the assessee to support and substantiate his claim for the expenses by establishing that the same were wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of his business and when this burden was not discharged by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A), should have remanded the matter to the A.O. with a direction to the assessee to produce the relevant documentary evidence to support and substantiate his claim for the expenses Matter remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. Onus to prove creditor - Addition on account of sundry creditors treating the same as unexplained/unproved Addition u/s 68 of the Income tax Act Held that - Onus in this regard was on the assessee to establish that the concerned creditors were genuine and since this onus was not discharged by the assessee by producing the supporting documentary evidence, this issue also should be restored to the file of the A.O. for deciding the same afresh.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee
- Treatment of sundry creditors as unexplained/unproved
- Assessment of agricultural income as income from other sources

Issue 1: Disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee
The Revenue appealed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) challenging the additions made by the A.O. to the total income of the assessee. The A.O. completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act due to non-compliance by the assessee. The A.O. disallowed 20% of the expenses claimed by the assessee as the necessary details were not provided. The ld. CIT(A) held that the A.O. lacked positive adverse material to justify the disallowance and deleted the addition. However, the tribunal disagreed, stating that the burden was on the assessee to substantiate the expenses for business purposes. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter to the A.O. for fresh assessment, directing the assessee to produce relevant documentary evidence.

Issue 2: Treatment of sundry creditors as unexplained/unproved
The A.O. added Rs. 4,95,083/- to the total income on account of unexplained/unproved sundry creditors. The ld. CIT(A) disagreed with the A.O., stating that the burden to prove the creditors' identity and creditworthiness was on the assessee. The tribunal, however, held that the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the creditors, which was not done. The matter was restored to the A.O. for fresh assessment after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

Issue 3: Assessment of agricultural income
The A.O. treated the agricultural income shown by the assessee as income from other sources. The ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O. to verify the regularity of such income in past records. The tribunal allowed substantial relief to the assessee. The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A) order, which was dismissed, and the matter was restored for further verification.

In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order on both issues and directed the A.O. to reassess after providing the assessee with an opportunity to submit relevant evidence. The C.O. filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the appeal of the Revenue was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.