2020 (9) TMI 967 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest of labour expenditure - Disallowance based on mathematical calculations/formula based on earlier years data - expenditure on packing material is proportionately higher this year - HELD THAT - Disallowance was made on the ground that the assessee could not establish the requirement of expenditure and that this was inflated expenditure to reduce profits. We are of the view that these disclosures are based on presumptions and assumptions. The assessee explained before the ld. authorities the reasons for the increase in the expenditure. Disallowance was not based on evidence. It is not the case of the AO that such expenditure was not incurred or was bogus expenditure. This is a surmise. The fact of the assessee incurring this expenditure is not challenged by the AO. Hence, we are unable to sustain the addition in question. So, we delete the same. Addition on account of finance cost - Capital work in progress is a fraction of interest free funds held by the company. The propositions of law laid down in the case of Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. 2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT is that, in such circumstances interest free funds will be presumed to have been utilized for investing in non-income yielding assets. Applying this proposition of law to the facts of this case we hold that disallowance in question of interest is bad in law. In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Labour Charges
2. Disallowance of Packing Material Consumption
3. Disallowance of Finance Cost

Disallowance of Labour Charges:
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing calcined petroleum coke, filed its return of income declaring total income. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Labour Charges, Finance Cost, and Packing Material Consumption, resulting in increased total income. The Assessee contested the disallowances, arguing they were arbitrary and not based on facts or evidence. The Assessee provided necessary documents and evidence, including proof of tax deduction at source on labour charges. The Tribunal found the disallowances were made based on presumptions and assumptions, without evidence to prove the expenditure was unnecessary or inflated to reduce profits. The explanations provided by the Assessee regarding the increase in expenditure were considered satisfactory, leading to the deletion of the disallowances. Grounds 2 & 4 were allowed in favor of the Assessee.

Disallowance of Packing Material Consumption:
The AO disallowed Packing Material Consumption based on the assumption that the expenditure was inflated to reduce profits. The Assessee explained the increase in expenditure due to various factors affecting the cost of packing materials consumed. The Tribunal noted that the disallowance was not supported by evidence proving the expenditure was unnecessary or bogus. The AO did not challenge the fact that the Assessee had incurred the expenditure, leading to the deletion of the disallowance. Grounds 2 & 4 were allowed in favor of the Assessee.

Disallowance of Finance Cost:
The AO disallowed Finance Cost based on the presumption that interest free funds were utilized for non-income yielding assets. The Assessee argued that the capital work in progress was a fraction of the interest free funds held by the company. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest was not justified in law. The ground related to Finance Cost was allowed in favor of the Assessee. Consequently, the appeal of the Assessee was allowed in part, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the Assessee on the issues of Labour Charges, Packing Material Consumption, and Finance Cost.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the grounds of appeal, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning behind allowing the appeal in part.