2015 (10) TMI 464 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's appeal partially allowed, disallowance reduced to 5% for property renovation expenses. Business nature, expense verification, evidence key factors in decision.

Subhash Arora Versus DCIT, Central Circle, New Delhi

The tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal by reducing the disallowance percentage to 5% of the total expenditure claimed for property ... Disallowance of expenses on ‘Renovation/ Up gradation of property’ - Held that:- There is force in the submissions made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, considering the nature of assessee’s business, as also the period between the incurring of expenditure and the inquiries made by ld. CIT(A). However, at the same time in the absence of concrete evidence, it cannot be held that entire expenditure has to be allowed. We, therefore, restrict the disallowance to 5% of the total expenditure claimed by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee in part. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of expenses for renovation of properties.2. Justification of restricting disallowance percentage from 25% to 10%.3. Verification of bills and vouchers submitted by the assessee.4. Adequacy of evidence to support the claimed expenses.5. Assessment of nature of business and expenses incurred from unorganized sector.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of expenses for renovation of propertiesThe dispute in this case revolves around the disallowance of expenses amounting to &8377; 5,68,69,893 claimed for the renovation of properties by the assessee. The assessing officer initially disallowed 25% of the expenses due to concerns regarding the verifiability and completeness of the bills submitted by the assessee.Issue 2: Justification of restricting disallowance percentageThe primary contention in the appeals was the justification behind reducing the disallowance percentage from 25% to 10%. The assessee questioned the basis for this reduction, arguing that it was done without substantial adverse material or evidence. Conversely, the revenue challenged the decision, claiming that the reduction was erroneous given the circumstances of the case.Issue 3: Verification of bills and vouchersDuring the proceedings, the assessee submitted bills and vouchers to support the claimed expenses. However, discrepancies were noted in the bills, such as incomplete details, variations in the name of the business, and lack of verifiable information. The CIT(A) requested further verification of these documents to assess their authenticity.Issue 4: Adequacy of evidence for claimed expensesThe assessing officer raised concerns about the evidence supporting the claimed expenses, highlighting issues such as incomplete billing details, lack of payment evidence, and discrepancies in the bills received from various parties. The CIT(A) scrutinized the bills and observed inconsistencies, leading to a decision to restrict the disallowance percentage.Issue 5: Assessment of nature of business and expensesThe nature of the assessee's business, which involved procuring construction material from the unorganized sector, was a crucial aspect of the case. The assessee argued that the expenses were necessary for business requirements and provided detailed accounts to support the expenditure. The tribunal considered the nature of the business and the timing of inquiries made by the CIT(A) in determining the appropriate disallowance percentage.In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal by reducing the disallowance percentage to 5% of the total expenditure claimed. The decision balanced the nature of the business, the verifiability of expenses, and the evidence provided by the assessee, ultimately leading to a nuanced resolution of the dispute.