2014 (6) TMI 180 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Hyderabad Upholds CIT(A)'s Decision on Expenditure Disallowance

The Appellate Tribunal, ITAT Hyderabad, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of expenditure to Rs. 75,000, emphasizing the importance ... Reduction of disallowance – Relevant details not furnished - Held that:- CIT(A) restricted the disallowance and was of the view that in the absence of cogent reasons, since authenticity of expenditure could be susceptible, some reasonable amount could be disallowed, but not the entire amount as pointed out by the AO - Revenue was called upon to furnish the details such as total turnover, total expenditure incurred towards wages, salaries, conveyance, and other expenses and travelling expense – revenue was not able to furnish any details - it is not the case of the Revenue that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is excessive or it was not incurred at all - the assessee contended that even though fool-proof evidence could not be furnished, authenticity of such expenditure cannot be disputed, but for want of foolproof vouchers, at best, reasonable percentage of expenditure can be disallowed – revenue was unable to point out how the expenditure incurred by the assessee was excessive or unreasonable – revenue could not point out or place any material to contradict the findings of the CIT(A), thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Disallowance of expenditure by Assessing Officer2. Reduction of disallowance by CIT(A)3. Authenticity of expenditure without proper vouchersAnalysis:1. The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) Guntur regarding the disallowance of expenditure for the assessment year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee, totaling Rs. 14,88,560, due to lack of proper vouchers supporting the expenses like wages, salaries, conveyance, and other expenses. The assessee, a partnership firm, had secured a labour supply contract and contended that the expenditure was genuine and necessary for business purposes, even though some vouchers lacked proper signatures. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment based on the disallowed amount.2. The assessee appealed before the CIT(A), arguing that the disallowance was unjustified as the expenditure was genuine and necessary for the business operations. The CIT(A) considered the submissions and restricted the disallowance to Rs. 75,000, stating that while some reasonable amount could be disallowed due to the lack of proper documentation, disallowing the entire amount was not justified. The CIT(A) emphasized the need for cogent reasons to support the disallowance and concluded that restricting the disallowance to Rs. 75,000 would serve the ends of justice.3. The Revenue further appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, ITAT Hyderabad. During the proceedings, the Revenue failed to provide details or evidence to contradict the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the authenticity of the expenditure. The Tribunal noted that while fool-proof evidence was not available, the authenticity of the expenditure was not disputed, and there was no evidence of excessive or unreasonable expenditure by the assessee. As the Revenue could not substantiate its contentions, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of material to challenge the lower authority's decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of expenditure to Rs. 75,000, highlighting the importance of providing cogent reasons and evidence to support such disallowances. The case underscored the necessity of proper documentation to substantiate expenses and the burden on the Revenue to provide substantial evidence to challenge lower authorities' decisions in tax matters.