9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1020 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s. 68 - basis of AIR information, the assessing officer issued notice to the assessee under section 143(2) and further issued notice under section 142(1) - Held that - Assessee has furnished copy of cash book before us showing the deposit of ₹ 5,00,000/- on 15.11.2010 and further ₹ 5,00,000/- on 12.01.2011 with Tamilnad Bank (P) Ltd. We have seen that the assessee filed detailed reply before the AO along with cash book and again before the ld. CIT(A) vide submission dated 21st July 2014. From the orders of authorities below, we noticed that the addition was made by AO solely on the basis of AIR Information and without any corroborative evidence. The Revenue/AO has not made any independent enquiry. Instead of examining the evidence furnished before the assessing officer, the assessing officer merely relied upon the AIR Information which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Revenue has not made any enquiry to find out whether the AIR information was correct or not. The additions made solely on such borrowed information are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Addition u/s 68 is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 40A(2)(b) - AO disallowed the interest payment in excess of 12% - assessee failed to prove the nexus of Directors remuneration as well as the interest expenses - Held that - The Hon ble Allahabad High Court in Abbas Wazir (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 2003 (9) TMI 50 - ALLAHABAD High Court held that while invoking the provision of section 40A(2) of the Act the reasonableness of the expenditure for the purpose of business has to be seen from the point of view of businessmen and not that of Revenue, the approach has to be seen that the reasonableness must be looked into from the businessmen s point of view. We have seen that the assessee paid interest @ 15% to 18% to related parties. In our considered opinion the interest paid by the assessee is not unreasonable. The assessing officer has not given any specific reason as to why the interest paid by assessee is unreasonable. Considering the peculiarity of the facts of the case the disallowance is deleted.
Issues Involved:
1. Rule 46A and the treatment of documents as additional evidence. 2. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: I. Rule 46A: The first issue pertains to the treatment of documents submitted by the assessee before the Commissioner of Appeals (CIT(A)) as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee argued that the documents, including a copy of the Day Book of the cash book, were part of the financial statements and were submitted during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) erroneously treated these submissions as additional evidence, leading to their rejection. The Tribunal noted that this ground of appeal does not require specific adjudication and would be addressed while discussing other grounds of appeal. II. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The second issue involves the confirmation of an addition of ?10,00,000 under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit. The assessee contended that the cash deposits were reflected in the books of accounts and were duly audited. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the amount based on AIR information without corroborative evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the addition despite the assessee providing a cash book and other supporting documents during remand proceedings. The Tribunal found that the AO made the addition solely based on AIR information without independent inquiry and did not consider the cash book submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal referred to the decision in M/s Kroner Investment Ltd. vs. DCIT, emphasizing that additions based solely on AIR information are unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 68, allowing the ground in favor of the assessee. III. Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act: The third issue concerns the disallowance of ?16,23,034 under Section 40A(2)(b), which includes ?12,15,000 for Directors' remuneration and ?4,08,034 for excess interest paid to related parties. The assessee argued that the remuneration was increased due to substantial business expansion and was approved by a resolution in the Annual General Meeting. The AO disallowed the increase, limiting it to 15% over the preceding year, and the CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal noted that the reasonableness of remuneration should be viewed from the businessman's perspective and not the Revenue's. The Tribunal found no evidence to show that the remuneration was excessive and deleted the disallowance of ?12,15,000. Regarding the disallowance of ?4,08,034 for interest payments, the AO restricted the allowance to 12%, disallowing the excess interest paid at rates between 15% and 18%. The Tribunal emphasized that reasonableness should be judged from the businessman's viewpoint. The Tribunal found the interest rates reasonable and deleted the disallowance. Consequently, the ground related to Section 40A(2)(b) was allowed in favor of the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the additions and disallowances made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The order was pronounced on July 11, 2017.
|
