2019 (4) TMI 875 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of lease rentals - excessive deduction - HELD THAT - It is however noted that in the assessment order the AO has nowhere questioned the allowability of the deduction of lease rentals but disallowed the impugned sum on the ground that it was an excessive deduction claimed by the appellant since according to him this amount formed part of the staff welfare expenses and which were separately debited in the P L A/c. I note that before the Ld. CIT(A) as well this Tribunal the appellant was unable to provide any evidence to show that the expenses debited in P L A/c did not include this amount of lease rentals separately claimed as deduction in the computation of income. The Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the appellant therefore requested that the matter be remanded back to the AO and sufficient opportunity be allowed to the appellant to prove that the claim was not an excessive deduction and that the impugned sum did not form part of the staff welfare expenses debited to P L A/c. - allowed for statistical purposes. Addition of interest income relying on 26AS - assessee claimed that interest income did not pertain to it and company has not even claimed the credit of TDS - HELD THAT - I am of the considered view that based on 26AS alone no additions can be made. This can at best be a starting point for necessary verification but it cannot, on standalone basis, justify the impugned addition.I therefore consider it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the AO strictly for the limited purpose of verifying the information. In case, he can find any independent evidence for the relevant AY 2012-13 that the appellant had actually received the impugned interest income, then only he can bring the same to tax. It is made clear that the onus will be on the AO to bring on record independent evidence after making enquiries from the payees and that the assessee cannot be expected to discharge the impossible burden of proving a negative i.e., that the assessee did not receive such interest income - allowed for statistical purposes. Adjustment in book profit u/s 115JB - long-term employees benefits in the form of gratuity, leave encashment, ex-gratia bonus - HELD THAT - Having heard the rival submissions and after perusing the material on record; it is noted that the provisions in respect of gratuity, leave encashment, ex-gratia bonus were created on actuarial basis and had been estimated with reasonable certainty. Accordingly such provisions cannot be said to be provisions of unascertained liabilities so to add it back under clause (c) of the Explanation to section 115JB(2). Since these provisions are in the nature of ascertained liabilities, I am of the considered view that the same is allowable while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act. In this regard, I rely on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Eastern Power Distribution Co. of AP Ltd Vs ACIT 2011 (3) TMI 547 - ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM wherein on identical set of facts this Tribunal - ground stands allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of lease rentals claimed as double deduction.
2. Addition of interest income based on Form 26AS.
3. Addition of provisions for long-term employees' benefits in computing book profit under section 115JB.

Issue 1: Disallowance of lease rentals claimed as double deduction:
The appellant, engaged in car rental services, claimed lease rentals as a deduction. The AO disallowed it, considering it an excessive/double deduction already covered under staff welfare expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance due to lack of evidence. The appellant cited a Supreme Court case supporting the deduction. The Tribunal noted the AO didn't question the deduction's legality but disallowed it as excessive. As the appellant failed to prove the lease rentals were not part of staff welfare expenses, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for further examination with additional evidence, if any.

Issue 2: Addition of interest income based on Form 26AS:
The AO added undisclosed interest income based on Form 26AS as the appellant failed to reconcile it with their books. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition despite appellant's claim that the income didn't belong to them. The Tribunal held that Form 26AS alone couldn't justify the addition and remitted the matter to the AO for verification. The AO must provide independent evidence of the interest income being received for taxation, relieving the appellant from proving a negative. The onus is on the AO to gather such evidence and provide a fair opportunity for the appellant to respond.

Issue 3: Addition of provisions for long-term employees' benefits in computing book profit under section 115JB:
The AO added back provisions for gratuity, leave encashment, ex-gratia & bonus to book profit under section 115JB without reason. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The Tribunal noted the provisions were created on an actuarial basis and were ascertained liabilities, not unascertained. Citing a Tribunal decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions as these provisions were allowable while computing book profit under section 115JB. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed each issue comprehensively, remanding one for further examination, directing verification for another, and deleting additions for the third issue based on relevant legal precedents and principles.