2012 (10) TMI 507 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds CIT(A)'s Decision on Expense Additions

The tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting various additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the expenses were necessary ... Assessment u/s 144 – Arbitrary addition - AO made assessment u/s 144 on the basis of material on record - Assessee furnished all the relevant bills and vouchers along with the details of expenses before the CIT(A) the in support of the entries in the books of accounts shown before the AO – Assessee contended that additions made under the various heads of expenses are not only arbitrary but also unjustified - Held that:- The AO while completing the best judgement, assessment u/s.144 has made very arbitrary additions on each and every items of expenses debited in the P&L account, without assigning any proper reasons. Even during the course of the remand proceedings, he has failed to examine the details and evidences in the form of bills and vouchers and rather has objected to findings of the CIT(A) for admitting the fresh evidence filed by the assessee. Once the CIT(A) in his power has admitted the additional evidence on record, the AO was required to examine the evidences rather than challenging the CIT(A)’s power for admission of additional evidence. Issue in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Deletion of disallowance related to 'Repairs & Maintenance' expenses.2. Relief granted for addition on account of rent & contract receipt.3. Deletion of addition representing unproved expenditure.4. Deletion of disallowance related to sundry creditors and other liabilities.5. Deletion of addition related to expenses on kitchen equipment.Detailed Analysis:Repairs and Maintenance:The appellant claimed expenses under various heads such as computers, building, plant and machinery, electrical installation, and furniture & fixtures, totaling Rs. 60,17,235. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed Rs. 44,29,684, treating them as capital expenditure. The appellant argued that these expenses were necessary for maintaining the hotel's ambience and were below Rs. 5000 item-wise. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the expenses were for items like lockers, pipes, coffee tables, etc., which do not create a capital asset or enduring advantage. Hence, the addition was deleted.Rent and Contract Receipts:The A.O. added Rs. 27,86,277 based on AIR information regarding tax deduction at source, as the appellant did not produce books of accounts to verify the receipts. The appellant provided detailed statements and invoices during the appeal, showing that the receipts were accounted for. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the appellant had reconciled Rs. 25,76,267 and restricted the addition to Rs. 2,10,012 due to lack of explanation for this balance amount.Unproved Expenditure:The A.O. added Rs. 27,67,869, comparing current year expenses with the previous year and finding an excess without verifying the books of accounts. The appellant argued that the increase in expenses was proportional to the 13% increase in turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) found the increase in expenses reasonable and commensurate with the turnover increase, deleting the addition.Sundry Creditors and Other Liabilities:The A.O. added Rs. 39,21,948, treating certain liabilities as non-existent due to lack of details. The appellant provided details and payment dates for the liabilities in the subsequent year. The Ld. CIT(A) found that merely because expenses remained unpaid at the year-end does not make them inadmissible. The addition was deleted as the liabilities were paid in the next year.Expenses on Kitchen Equipment:The A.O. disallowed Rs. 7,05,861, treating the expenditure on items like knives, gas lighters, and dinner sets as capital in nature. The appellant provided a list of items and vendors, arguing that these were necessary for business operations. The Ld. CIT(A) found no basis for the addition and deleted it.Conclusion:The tribunal found that the A.O. made arbitrary additions without proper verification and upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, which was based on a detailed analysis and verification of evidence. The appeal filed by the department was dismissed.