2021 (2) TMI 957 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of professional expenses - disallowance @ 5% of total claim, was made by AO on the ground that the assessee had not given even the addresses and PAN of certain/ concerned parties because of which the verification regarding genuineness of the same could not be carried out; and further, that the assessee could not explain and substantiate the justification for such huge expenses for business need Disallowance of contract payments - assessee had not given the addresses and PANs of certain/ concerned parties because of which the verification regarding genuineness of the same could not be carried out; and, secondly that the assessee had applied lower rate for deducting tax at source as reported in the Audit Report HELD THAT - It is settled law that onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of expenses claimed by the assessee as deduction. It is also settled law that the AO has statutory authority to make inquiries before completing assessment; and to gather all relevant material. Such statutory authority of the AO has also been specifically mentioned in relevant provisions of law including in sections 142, 142A 143(3), 131, 133, 133A of IT Act, for example. It is an assessee s duty to comply with lawful requirements prescribed by Revenue authorities. When an assessee does not comply with lawful requirements prescribed by Revenue authorities, the assessee cannot claim a lenient view as a matter of right, and the assessee must face the consequences in accordance with law; more so, when the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of a claim. For this view, we take support from order of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Aradhana Foods Juices Pvt. Ltd. v/s. ITO. 2017 (6) TMI 1263 - ITAT DELHI , in which similar view was taken in respect of disallowance of unverified purchases which was affirmed by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aradhana Foods Juices Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (9) TMI 795 - DELHI HIGH COURT . In the fitness of things, therefore, in view of the foregoing, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case; we set aside the impugned order dated 07/09/2017 of Ld. CIT(A); and restore the issues in dispute in the present appeal before us to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh order as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Professional Expenses
2. Disallowance of Expenses Paid to Contractors

Analysis:

(A) Disallowance of Professional Expenses:
The appeal by the Assessee challenges the disallowance of professional expenses totaling ?60,53,727, representing 5% of the total payments of ?12,10,74,547. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount due to lack of verification of genuineness and inadequate justification for the high expenses. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirmed this disallowance citing the Assessee's failure to provide addresses and PANs of parties and lack of supporting vouchers or bills. The Assessee admitted non-compliance, attributing it to the large number of parties involved and time constraints. The Authorized Representative argued for a reduction in the disallowance. The Tribunal noted the non-compliance and upheld the onus on the Assessee to prove the genuineness of expenses claimed. Referring to relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

(B) Disallowance of Expenses Paid to Contractors:
The second ground of appeal concerns the disallowance of ?55,03,286 out of total contract payments of ?55,03,28,622. The disallowance was based on the Assessee's failure to provide addresses and PANs for verification and using a lower TDS rate. The Commissioner upheld this disallowance due to the Assessee's non-submission of TDS details and addresses of payment recipients. The Assessee's representative admitted the non-compliance was unintentional due to the complexity of the task. The Tribunal emphasized the Assessee's duty to comply with lawful requirements and prove the genuineness of claims. Citing a similar case precedent, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed a fresh assessment by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, providing directions for a fresh assessment in both disputed issues.