2016 (10) TMI 888 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of consultancy charges - whether the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee ? - Held that - We find that in the instant case the AO has agreed that submissions were duly made and all payments cannot be doubted. In our considered opinion it is not the duty of the Department to hold that where the expenditure is to be made. It is for the business-man to decide where the expenditure is to be made for smooth functioning of the business. Looking to the totality of the facts of the case we do not find any ambiguity or irregularities in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) the same is hereby upheld. Thus grounds raising by the Revenue in this appeal are dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition/disallowance of consultancy charges.
2. Deletion of addition made on account of disallowance of commission payable to associates.
3. Deletion of addition made on account of disallowance of good health expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition/Disallowance of Consultancy Charges:
The Revenue contested the deletion of ?31,41,320/- paid as consultancy charges to Jeevansuraksha Medicare Services Ltd., arguing that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purpose of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had previously deleted this addition. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that it is the businessman's prerogative to decide where the expenditure is to be made for the smooth functioning of the business. The tribunal found no ambiguity or irregularities in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

2. Deletion of Addition Made on Account of Disallowance of Commission Payable to Associates:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of ?22,67,133/- made on account of disallowance of commission payable to associates, stating that the assessee failed to prove that these expenditures were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not verified the payments adequately and had not made any effort to cross-examine the payees. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had provided names, addresses, PAN details, and confirmations of about 18 persons, along with bank statements showing commission payments. The AO admitted that ?16,20,680/- was paid in the subsequent year, and ?6,46,453/- was still unpaid. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's disallowance was not justified as the veracity of the payments was not doubted and the payments were made for business purposes. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO had not brought any material on record to establish that the payments were not for business purposes.

3. Deletion of Addition Made on Account of Disallowance of Good Health Expenses:
The Revenue disputed the deletion of ?1,31,860/- made on account of disallowance of good health expenses. The AO had disallowed these expenses, stating that the business purpose and justification for such expenses were not proved. The CIT(A) found that the assessee company, engaged in providing medical-related services, had incurred these expenses as part of its business operations. The assessee had paid ?81,860/- to a member due to a dispute with an insurance company and ?50,000/- for an awareness program related to health insurance. The CIT(A) held that these expenses were incidental and ancillary to the assessee's business and were allowable under the Income Tax Act. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO had not proven that the payments were not for business purposes.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order in all contested issues. The tribunal emphasized that it is the businessman's decision to determine the necessity and purpose of expenditures for the smooth functioning of the business and found no irregularities in the CIT(A)'s findings.