2018 (3) TMI 1157 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment u/s. 69 - Held that - The opening WDV was declared as lesser value in the original return of income. These are genuine explanations assessee has to offer before the assessing authorities. Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition merely because these additions were made in the subsequent assessment year, the same cannot be added in this assessment year as unexplained investment, which is, according to us not proper. When assessee claims differently in the revised return of income, it is the duty of assessee to explain properly the source of such investment. Therefore, for the sake of justice, we are remitting back this issue of unexplained investment to the file of AO to verify the sources of investment with a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Disallowance of expenditure - Held that - AO has made the three additions relating to consultancy charges, cost of medicines and salaries. With regard to consultancy charges, assessee has brought on record the details of expenditure relating to consultancy charges and the differences in the relevant P&L statement itself. As such, there is no additional evidence submitted before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we uphold the findings of Ld.CIT(A) with regard to consultancy charges. Coming to cost of maintenance and salaries, assessee has recognized the pending receipts from Arogya Sree Scheme at the same time recorded the relevant expenditure only in the revised return of income filed. Assessee has submitted relevant information along with confirmation of balance received from suppliers before the CIT(A). This balance confirmation and relevant vouchers for purchase of medicine and salaries due were not submitted before the AO. In our considered view, this needs verification as the same was not submitted before the AO. Salary payable and supplier confirmation are remitted back to the file of AO for verification. Needless to say that assessee may be given proper opportunity of being heard. Ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes. Claim of inflated expenditure relating to chit discount, bank interest and X-ray expenses - Held that - We have noticed that assessee has disclosed Arogya Sree receipts in the original return of income after adjusting the expenditures. According to assessee, it is relevant to that particular source of income. Whereas at the time of filing revised return of income, it has properly disclosed the total receipts from Arogya Sree and declared the above said expenditure in the P&L A/c as expenditure. Further, relevant information was submitted before AO on 25-02-2013 which was also acknowledged by the AO. Therefore, it is not an additional evidence, it is only a book adjustment which is already in the file of AO. Therefore we are in agreement with the findings of Ld.CIT(A). Moreover, the proceedings before CIT(A) are nothing but extension of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, ground raised by Revenue is dismissed. Consultancy charges to doctors under the head consultancy charges - addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of TDS - Held that - We noticed that assessee has filed evidences to claim that it has paid payment to doctors below ₹ 20,000/- and claim under Arogya Sree Scheme before CIT(A). This information was not submitted before the AO. We noticed that this information needs no further verification. These are handful vouchers which were submitted before Ld.CIT(A) which he has verified and agreed. No need of any further investigation or verification. Accordingly, ground raised by Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of depreciation - Held that - We found that the claim of assessee is proper. The claim made by assessee in return of income is relevant and not the calculation as per the depreciation schedule, which may be filed by the assessee before the AO. We find that the assessee has claimed valid depreciation in the return of income as per depreciation schedule. Therefore, ground raised by Revenue is dismissed. Appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals and cross-objections.
2. Addition on account of unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Disallowance of expenditure due to non-submission of evidence.
4. Disallowance of Arogya Sree expenditure.
5. Disallowance of consultancy charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
6. Disallowance of depreciation.
7. Disallowance of cash payments under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.
8. Disallowance of expenditure owing to non-submission of evidence for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
Both the Revenue and the assessee filed their appeals and cross-objections with delays. The Tribunal condoned the delays for both parties, being satisfied with the reasonable cause for the delays, thus admitting the appeals and cross-objections to be heard on merits.

2. Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment (Section 69):
The Assessing Officer (AO) added ?19,72,731/- as unexplained investment, noting discrepancies in the opening Written Down Value (WDV) of equipment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted this addition, observing that the increase in fixed assets occurred in the AY 2007-08 and was explained then. The Tribunal, however, found the explanation insufficient and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh verification of the sources of investment.

3. Disallowance of Expenditure Due to Non-Submission of Evidence:
The AO disallowed ?20,46,562/- for inflated expenditures under consultation charges, cost of medicine, and salaries. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation and supporting documents. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding consultancy charges but remitted the issues of cost of medicines and salaries back to the AO for verification, as these documents were not initially submitted to the AO.

4. Disallowance of Arogya Sree Expenditure:
The AO disallowed ?11,58,999/- under chit discount, bank interest, and X-ray expenses. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation that these expenditures were adjusted against Arogya Sree receipts in the original return and properly disclosed in the revised return. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the information was already in the AO's file and did not constitute fresh evidence.

5. Disallowance of Consultancy Charges (Section 40(a)(ia)):
The AO added back ?1,84,490/- due to non-deduction of TDS on consultancy charges. The CIT(A) enhanced the disallowance to ?6,85,540/- after verifying that certain payments did not attract TDS. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the evidence submitted did not require further verification.

6. Disallowance of Depreciation:
For AY 2010-11, the AO disallowed ?1,91,894/- for excess depreciation claimed. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance after verifying that the depreciation claimed was consistent with the original return. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), confirming that the claim was proper and valid.

7. Disallowance of Cash Payments (Section 40A(3)):
For AY 2010-11, the AO disallowed ?1,15,600/- for cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit. The Tribunal's decision on this issue was not explicitly detailed in the provided text, implying that it followed the conclusions drawn in the earlier appeal for similar facts.

8. Disallowance of Expenditure Owing to Non-Submission of Evidence (AY 2010-11):
The AO disallowed ?9,15,929/- for non-submission of evidence. The Tribunal's approach to this issue followed the same reasoning as in the earlier appeal, remitting back issues where necessary for verification and upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions where appropriate.

Conclusion:
Both the appeals of Revenue were partly allowed for statistical purposes, and both cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal remitted specific issues back to the AO for fresh verification while upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on other matters. The order was pronounced in the open court on 21st March 2018.