2015 (9) TMI 1061 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed: Assessee's Business Expenses Substantiated; No Substantial Legal Questions

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8 Versus SERGI TRANSFORMER EXPLOSION PREVENTION PVT LTD

The Court dismissed the appeal after finding that the Assessee had adequately substantiated business expenses with detailed documentation, leading to the ... Disallowance made on account of communication, travelling and conveyance expenses - ITAT confirmed order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance - Held that:- The order of the CIT (A) sets out in a tabular form the details provided by the Assessee for every item of expense. The Assessee also appears to have produced supporting vouchers and bills as well as copies of the concerned ledger account. The finding of the CIT (A) has been concurred with by the ITAT. In that view of the matter, the Court is unable to be persuaded to hold that the order of the ITAT is perverse. No substantial question of law arises - Decided against revenue. Issues:Delay in re-filing appeal, condonation of delay, correctness of ITAT order on expenses disallowance, production of vouchers and documents, purpose of business expenses, substantial question of law determination.Delay in re-filing appeal:The judgment begins by condoning the delay in re-filing the appeal in CM APPL No. 19711/2015 for reasons stated therein. The application is disposed of. Similarly, in CM APPL No. 19710/2015, a delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the application is disposed of.Correctness of ITAT order on expenses disallowance:The main issue in ITA No. 722/2015 is whether the ITAT was correct in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of a sum on account of communication, travelling, and conveyance expenses. The Revenue contended that the Assessee failed to produce vouchers and documents to substantiate that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. However, the CIT (A) detailed the expenses provided by the Assessee in a tabular form, along with supporting vouchers, bills, and ledger accounts. The ITAT concurred with the CIT (A)'s finding, leading the Court to dismiss the appeal as it found no substantial question of law to determine.Production of vouchers and documents for business expenses:The Revenue argued that the Assessee did not produce sufficient vouchers and documents to support the claimed business expenses. However, the CIT (A) and ITAT found that the Assessee had indeed provided detailed supporting documentation, including vouchers, bills, and ledger accounts for each expense item. This thorough documentation led the Court to conclude that the order of the ITAT was not perverse, and no substantial question of law arose for determination.Substantial question of law determination:After reviewing the arguments and evidence presented, the Court found that no substantial question of law arose from the case. The Court was unable to be persuaded that the ITAT's order was perverse, especially considering the detailed documentation provided by the Assessee to support the business expenses. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the lack of any substantial legal issues for consideration.This judgment primarily dealt with issues related to the condonation of delays in re-filing appeals, the correctness of the ITAT order regarding expenses disallowance, the production of vouchers and documents to support business expenses, and the determination of substantial questions of law. The Court dismissed the appeal after finding that the Assessee had adequately substantiated the business expenses with detailed documentation, leading to the conclusion that no substantial legal questions merited further consideration.