2015 (6) TMI 206 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of land development charges - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that - Claim of the assessee for such development expenses was disallowed by the A.O. on the ground that the relevant details to show the exact nature of expenses incurred were not furnished by the assessee and the onus to prove that the said expenses were incurred in connection with the concerned projects of the assessee was not satisfactorily discharged. As rightly contended by the Learned D.R., this specific reason given by the A.O. for making the disallowance has been overlooked by the Ld. CIT(A) and the claim of the assessee for land development charges is allowed by him only on the basis that the payment of such charges was made by the assessee to M/s. Ganesh Estates, by cheque after deducting tax at source. The mere fact that the relevant payment was made by the assessee to M/s. Ganesh Estates by cheque after deducting tax at source is not sufficient to allow the claim of the assessee for the said expenses and the onus in this regard is on the assessee to establish on evidence that the land development expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. Thus restore the matter to the file of the A.O. for deciding the same afresh - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Disallowance of commission expenses - assessee had not discharged its onus to prove that the expenses were incurred for its business - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that - CIT(A) has again erred in relying only on the fact that the amount of commission was paid by the assessee by cheque after deducting tax at source to allow the claim of the assessee without appreciating that it is for the assessee to establish on evidence that the commission expenses claimed by it were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. We therefore set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of A.O. for deciding the same afresh - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Disallowance made u/s. 40A(3) - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that - The payments made by the assessee to the land lords in cash were found to be covered by the Ld. CIT(A) by exceptional circumstances specified in Rule 8DD of I.T. Rules inasmuch as the same were made in respect of projects of the assessee located in remote villages where banking facilities were not in existence. At the time of hearing before us, the learned D.R. has not been able to dispute or controvert this finding recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) while allowing the relief to the assessee on this issue. We therefore find no justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and upholding the same - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of land development charges
2. Disallowance of commission expenses
3. Disallowance under section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding the limit

Issue 1: Disallowance of Land Development Charges

The assessee, a real estate company, claimed various expenses including land development charges, commission, and payments towards land in its income tax return. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed these expenses as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the expenses were wholly and exclusively for business purposes. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)) allowed a partial deduction for land development expenses of Rs. 16,00,863 but deleted the disallowance of Rs. 32,00,000 paid to Ganesh Estates. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that mere payment by cheque after deducting tax is insufficient to prove the expenses' business purpose. The matter was remanded to the A.O. for further examination.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Commission Expenses

The A.O. disallowed the commission expenses claimed by the assessee, as evidence supporting the business purpose was lacking. The CIT(A) relied on the fact that the commission was paid by cheque after deducting tax at source to allow the claim. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee must establish with evidence that the commission expenses were wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The matter was remanded to the A.O. for further review.

Issue 3: Disallowance under Section 40A(3) for Cash Payments

The A.O. suggested disallowing cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 under section 40A(3) for payments made to land lords. However, the CIT(A) disagreed, stating the payments were made in remote villages without banking facilities and thus covered by Rule 8DD of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, remanding the issues of land development charges and commission expenses back to the A.O. for further examination. The disallowance under section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding the limit was upheld based on the exceptional circumstances specified in the Income Tax Rules.