2012 (7) TMI 271 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds CIT(A)'s Decisions on Tax Appeals

M/s. Parekh Corporation United India Building Versus The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax Mumbai.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in most cases, allowing partial relief to the assessees and dismissing the Revenue's appeals. It emphasized the ... Disallowance of conveyance expenses, staff welfare expenses, sundry expenses and traveling expenses - Held that:- As immediately preceding assessment year 2004-2005 AO disallowed 10% of above mentioned expenses and that too for a year prior to that i.e. assessment year 2003-2004, and the assessee admitted that he did not file any appeal against the disallowance made by the A.O. in the immediately preceding year - thus, considering the facts that the assessee itself admitted, that certain expenses were not supported by third party vouchers, disallowance is warranted - decided against assessee. Disallowance being 20% out of cash expenses incurred on behalf of customers - Held that:- As assessee had issued Debit notes to its principal companies for Rs.5.36 crore towards service charges and commission income to the tune of Rs.3.07 crore and reimbursement of expenses worth Rs.2.29 crore. The Assessing Officer deduced the figure of Rs.5.36 crore from the accounts of the principals appearing in the ledger account of the assessee, this amply proves that the amounts were promptly displayed in the books of account - bedrock for making any addition u/s 69C is that there must have been some expenditure incurred by the assessee, the source of which is not disclosed is not proved here - incurring of such expenses by the assessee in cash etc. calling for disallowance cannot be warranted - When the principal companies have reimbursed the expenditure to the tune of `2.29 crore there cannot be any presumption that the assessee must have saved some money out of the same - decided against revenue. Issues Involved:1. Ad hoc disallowance of expenses (Conveyance, Staff Welfare, Sundry, Traveling).2. Disallowance of cash expenses incurred on behalf of customers.3. Reference to the Valuation Officer under Section 142A.4. Disallowance of expenditure under Section 69C for building improvement.Detailed Analysis:1. Ad hoc Disallowance of Expenses:M/s. Parekh Corporation:The assessee challenged the confirmation of an ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 2 lakh out of conveyance, staff welfare, sundry, and traveling expenses. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed 10% of these expenses due to lack of proper documentary evidence, resulting in an addition of Rs. 3,96,128. The CIT(A) reduced this disallowance to Rs. 2 lakh. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee admitted that some expenses were not supported by third-party vouchers. Therefore, the grounds were not allowed.M/s. Parekh Distributors:Similar to M/s. Parekh Corporation, the A.O. disallowed 10% of conveyance, staff welfare, sundry, and traveling expenses, resulting in an addition of Rs. 2.98 lakh. The CIT(A) reduced this to Rs. 1.50 lakh. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the grounds.2. Disallowance of Cash Expenses Incurred on Behalf of Customers:M/s. Parekh Corporation:The A.O. disallowed 10% of cash expenses incurred on behalf of customers, resulting in an addition of Rs. 53.64 lakh under Section 69C, treating it as unexplained expenditure. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance related to service charges, commission income, octroi, and freight paid, but sustained a 20% disallowance on other cash expenses, resulting in an addition of Rs. 27.03 lakh. The Tribunal found that the provisions of Section 69C were wrongly applied as the expenses were recorded in the books. The Tribunal ordered the deletion of the entire addition, allowing the assessee's grounds and dismissing the Revenue's grounds.M/s. Parekh Distributors:The facts and circumstances were similar to M/s. Parekh Corporation. The Tribunal followed the same reasoning and allowed the assessee's grounds while dismissing the Revenue's grounds.3. Reference to the Valuation Officer under Section 142A:M/s. Parekh Distributors:The A.O. made a reference under Section 142A for valuation, but no addition was made based on this reference. The CIT(A) dismissed the ground as premature. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that no addition had been made till date, and dismissed the ground.4. Disallowance of Expenditure under Section 69C for Building Improvement:M/s. Parekh Distributors:The A.O. disallowed Rs. 18,70,649 claimed as building improvement expenses under Section 69C, stating that the property belonged to the partners and no renovation work was carried out. The CIT(A) deleted the addition under Section 69C but reduced the depreciation claim by 50% for personal use. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the amount was recorded in the books, and therefore, Section 69C could not be applied.Conclusion:The Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of ad hoc disallowance of expenses, disallowance of cash expenses, reference to the Valuation Officer, and disallowance under Section 69C. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in most cases, allowing partial relief to the assessees and dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper documentation and the correct application of legal provisions.