2016 (8) TMI 48 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) in respect of expenditure on account of hiring of trucks - Held that - The assessee has already paid the entire expenses and nothing was payable as on 31st March, 2010, therefore the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be applied. Disallowance made u/s. 40A(3) - Held that - We find that the CIT(Appeals) has given the full details of the payment in the impugned order, which is more than the minimum limit of exemption provided under the provisions of section 40A(3). Therefore, in the absence of any contrary fact or material, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of fact given by the CIT(Appeals), wherein all the individual amounts were found to be more than the minimum prescribed limit of ₹ 20,000. There is no dispute that all these payments were made in cash. Therefore, the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim. Accordingly the order of the CIT(Appeals) qua this issue is upheld.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenses related to the assessee's own vehicles.
2. Interpretation and application of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Expenses Related to the Assessee's Own Vehicles:
The assessee challenged the disallowance of expenses amounting to ?20,72,000/- related to his own three vehicles. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Hubballi, had approved this disallowance. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in adding the entire amount, including the profit, instead of only the profit embodied in the expenses. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee's claim that the expenditure was for his own vehicles was not correct. The CIT(A) had provided detailed findings, which were not contradicted by the assessee.

2. Interpretation and Application of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee contended that since the entire expenses were paid and nothing was payable as of 31st March 2010, the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) could not be applied. However, the tribunal noted that this issue was covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit v. ACIT, 383 ITR 561 (Karn). The High Court had held that the consequence of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is attracted even if the amount is not payable at the end of the financial year. The tribunal emphasized that non-compliance with statutory provisions of Sections 194C, 194I, and 194J of the Act was evident, and thus, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was justified.

3. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) for Cash Payments Exceeding the Prescribed Limit:
The CIT(A) had disallowed certain payments made in cash, which exceeded the prescribed limit under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided full details of these payments, which were more than the minimum limit of ?20,000. The assessee did not provide any contrary evidence or material to dispute these findings. Therefore, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim that these payments should not be disallowed.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal by the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The disallowance of vehicle expenses, the application of Section 40(a)(ia), and the disallowance under Section 40A(3) were all found to be justified based on the facts and legal precedents presented. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 27th July 2016.