2019 (10) TMI 911 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance under the head expenses - addition to 10% of the total expenses and restricted the depreciation to 1/5th of the total depreciation on the addition of fixed assets added during the year under consideration by CIT-A - AO made ad-hoc disallowance on the reasoning that books of accounts and bills and voucher in respect of the other expenses as well as addition to the assets were not produced before him - HELD THAT - CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has not filed detail of expenses before the Assessing Officer still he restricted the disallowance for other expenses to 10% of the total expenses without any justification and only on the basis of the magnitude of the disallowance. The learned CIT(A) should have examined the books of accounts along with bills and vouchers to decide the issue of disallowance of other expenses and depreciation. The action of the learned CIT(A) of sustaining the disallowance on ad-hoc basis is not justified. In the facts and circumstances of the case we feel it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh with the direction to the assessee to produce all the necessary documents in support of its claim including books of accounts and bills and voucher in relation to other expenses and additions to assets for justifying the claim of the depreciation. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. Accordingly the grounds raised by both the parties are allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues Involved:
1. Application of the law of estoppel and discrepancies in documents.
2. Ad-hoc disallowance of other expenses.
3. Disallowance of depreciation on additions to fixed assets.
4. Validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of the law of estoppel and discrepancies in documents:
The assessee argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by applying the law of estoppel and not accepting that there were no discrepancies in the documents and that the revised surrendered income was NIL. The Tribunal noted that the assessee retracted the surrender of ?5 crore made during the search proceedings. The Assessing Officer (AO) had asked the assessee to reconcile the incriminating material with the books of accounts, but the assessee failed to comply. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee's retraction after a long period indicated a lack of bona fide, which was against the rule of estoppel, as a person cannot retract a statement that induced another to act in a particular manner.

2. Ad-hoc disallowance of other expenses:
The AO disallowed 50% of the expenses claimed under "other expenses" amounting to ?36,85,40,000/- due to non-submission of details by the assessee. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 10% of the total expenses, considering the magnitude of the disallowance excessive. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have examined the books of accounts and supporting documents before making a decision. Thus, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to produce necessary documents to justify the expenses.

3. Disallowance of depreciation on additions to fixed assets:
The AO disallowed 50% of the depreciation claimed on additions to fixed assets due to the assessee's failure to provide details. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 1/5th, noting that the AO should have issued a final show-cause notice before making such a large disallowance. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the AO's action was excessive but emphasized the need for the assessee to substantiate its claim with proper documentation. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with a directive for the assessee to furnish all necessary details.

4. Validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):
The assessee contended that the order passed by the CIT(A) was bad in law. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in making ad-hoc disallowances without examining the necessary documents. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision, ensuring the assessee is given adequate opportunity to present evidence supporting its claims.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed both cross appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for statistical purposes, remanding the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication with specific directions to the assessee to produce all necessary documents, including books of accounts, bills, and vouchers, to justify their claims. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the evidence before making any disallowances. The order was pronounced in the open court on 15th October 2019.

← Previous Next →