2014 (5) TMI 919 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal rules for taxpayer in expense disallowance case, restricts office expenses, affirms interest income addition.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Shri Sandeep Nanavati

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Shri Sandeep Nanavati - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of labour and cash expenses2. Disallowance on account of travelling and office expenses3. Addition of interest income on Bank F.D.Issue 1: Disallowance of labour and cash expenses:The case involved the disallowance of labour and cash expenses claimed by the individual taxpayer, a civil contractor. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed a portion of the expenses due to lack of proper vouchers and records. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) partially upheld the disallowance. The Revenue appealed against the deletion of the disallowance, while the taxpayer objected to the upheld portion. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the taxpayer provided detailed evidence of expenses incurred for labour and that the A.O.'s rejection of the books of accounts was not justified. Ultimately, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance, ruling in favor of the taxpayer.Issue 2: Disallowance on account of travelling and office expenses:The A.O. disallowed a portion of the travelling and office expenses incurred by the taxpayer, citing lack of relevant vouchers and evidence. The CIT restricted the disallowance to a lower amount. The Revenue challenged the deletion of the disallowance, while the taxpayer contested the upheld disallowance. The Tribunal observed that considering the nature of the taxpayer's business involving multiple vehicles and transactions with companies outside the area, the CIT's decision to restrict the disallowance was reasonable. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and the taxpayer's objection.Issue 3: Addition of interest income on Bank F.D.:The A.O. added interest income earned on fixed deposits maintained by the taxpayer with a bank to the total income, as it was not offered for tax despite being credited by the bank. The CIT upheld the addition, noting that the interest income was related to the taxpayer's business assets and should have been offered for tax as the taxpayer claimed TDS credit on it. The taxpayer challenged this decision in the Cross Objection. The Tribunal found that the taxpayer followed a mercantile method of accounting and had not offered the interest income for tax despite claiming TDS credit. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT's decision, rejecting the taxpayer's objection and affirming the addition to the income.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal's judgment addressed various issues related to the disallowance of expenses and addition of income, providing detailed analysis and rulings on each matter, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and partial allowance of the taxpayer's Cross Objection.