2014 (1) TMI 1594 - HC - Income Tax

Consultancy charges - Genuineness - Held that - Any assessee would not claim such bogus expenditure, when it is eligible for 100% deduction under section 80IA of the Act - On the basis of other material on record, the services rendered by N.M. Consultants were not found doubtful, doubt was only with regard to the quantum of service - The payment was through the channel of bank and tax also was deducted at source and N.M. Consultants is not found to be related to the respondent assessee - The Tribunal was justified in allowing claim of expenditure - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Consultancy charges disallowed as bogus expenditure by Assessing Officer.
2. CIT (A) deleted the additions made by Assessing Officer.
3. Tribunal concluded in favor of the assessee regarding the consultancy charges.

Issue 1:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the disallowance of consultancy charges amounting to Rs.65 lakhs by the Assessing Officer, who deemed it as bogus expenditure claimed by the assessee due to lack of substantive evidence. The Assessing Officer based this disallowance on the fact that parties introduced by the consultancy firm did not respond to letters, with only one party denying any work done by the consultants. This disallowance led to the assessment of a significant loss by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 2:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or CIT (A) reversed the Assessing Officer's decision and deleted the additions made, providing cogent reasons for their decision. CIT (A) noted that the payment of Rs.65 lakhs to the consultancy firm was made through a banking channel with tax deducted at the source. The consultancy firm confirmed receiving the payment, and the assessee provided names and addresses of parties introduced by the consultancy firm. CIT (A) found the payment reasonable compared to the total income received by the appellant, leading to the deletion of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 3:
The matter was further taken to the Tribunal, which extensively analyzed the issue and ruled in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal highlighted that the Assessing Officer did not provide the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine a third party but emphasized that even without this, no substantial case was made by the authorities for the disallowance. The Tribunal also noted that the services rendered by the consultancy firm were not in doubt, with the doubt only pertaining to the quantum of services provided. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the eligibility of the assessee for a 100% deduction under section 80IA of the Act, further supporting the genuineness of the consultancy charges.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no question of law, let alone a substantial one, arose in the appeal. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's findings, as it considered all relevant material and concluded that the consultancy charges were genuine, especially given the proper payment channels, lack of related party involvement, and eligibility for tax deductions. The appeal was consequently dismissed.