2015 (12) TMI 1362 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of contractor expenses - whether payment made to sub-contractors are bogus - Held that - Assessing Officer cannot substitute his own standard of reasonableness of expenditure for that of the assessee, as the assessing authority has not brought anything to show that the assessee adopted colourable or illusory or fraudulent means to reduce the profits to show the expenditure. In our opinion, in the present case the assessee proved the genuineness of the payment by producing cogent evidence including identity of the parties alongwith payment details and the burden cast upon the assessee was discharged as there is no evidence to suggest the bogus nature of the expenditure and the conclusion of the Assessing Officer is based on the presumption to reach the conclusion that the payment are not genuine it cannot be upheld. Further, the assessee is able to show the commercial expediency to incur the expenditure for the purpose of business and incurring of expenditure also confirmed by the respective sub-contractors and they have received payments through banking channel in subsequent assessment years. Hence, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of contractor expenses under the head disallowance of contractor expenses.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Background: The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai, concerning the disallowance of contractor expenses for the assessment year 2010-2011.

2. Facts of the Case: The assessee engaged in manufacturing/trading of material handling equipment claimed direct expenditure paid to two parties, M/s. Erection India and M/s. Tekno Conveyor. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses as bogus, accommodation entries to reduce the company's profit at the year-end.

3. First Appellate Authority: The assessee submitted additional evidence during the first appellate authority proceedings. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered submissions, remand report, and confirmed that the subcontractors had indeed carried out the work for the assessee in the Vedanta project. The subcontractors confirmed their involvement, and the Assessing Officer did not dispute this fact.

4. Appellate Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal emphasized that expenditure includes liabilities accrued, not just actual payments. The Tribunal found that the subcontractors executed the projects, and the assessee incurred genuine business expenses. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's doubts on the expenditure's genuineness, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer lacked material to challenge the expenditure's reasonableness.

5. Legal Principles: The Tribunal clarified that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute their judgment for the reasonableness of expenditure unless there is concrete evidence of fraud or illusory means. In this case, the assessee provided evidence of genuine payments, commercial expediency, and confirmed payments through banking channels in subsequent years.

6. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision to allow the contractor expenses claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal found no grounds to doubt the genuineness of the expenditure incurred for business purposes.

This detailed analysis highlights the progression of the case, the reasoning behind the decisions made at each stage, and the legal principles applied to determine the allowability of the contractor expenses in question.