2016 (1) TMI 374 - HC - Income Tax

High Court ruling on expense claims: Partial appeal success, directors' expenses included.

The High Court partially allowed the appeal, upholding the disallowance of 5% of expenses claimed under 'consumable stores.' However, the Court ruled in ... Disallowance made in the 'consumable stores' - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- we find that there is an express finding given by the Assessing Authority as well as by the Ist Appellate Authority with regard to non-production of bills and vouchers and for not maintaining the stock register. In the absence of non-production of bills and vouchers, the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing certain expenditure by 10%, which was reduced by the Ist Appellate Authority to 5%. This aspect had not at all been considered by the Tribunal and the same had only been allowed on the ground that the turnover has increased by 5% and the expenditure has reduced. The Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that the expenditure claimed under the head manufacturing expenses, which forms part of the 'profit and loss account', showing expenses made by the assessee are required to be proved by production of bills and vouchers. Disallowance of 5% in the facts of the case is justified. - Decided against assessee Expenses attributable on the conveyance and telephone of the Directors of the assessee-company - should be included in the expenses of the assessee-company as held by ITAT - Held that:- nothing has been brought on record by the Department to indicate as to what was the direction given by the authority for the assessment year 2001-02. We are of the view that the expenses made by the assessee on telephone and conveyance running expenses, etc have to be dealt with in the same fashion as have been dealt in the earlier assessment years. The Tribunal has relied upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court holding that the remuneration given to the Directors which includes any expenditure incurred in providing benefit free of charge under the Companies Act cannot be disallowed. As such disallowance for maintenance of vehicle or conveyance and telephone is not justifiable - Decided in favour of assessee Issues:1. Disallowance of expenses claimed under 'consumable stores' in the profit and loss account.2. Inclusion of expenses attributable to conveyance and telephone of directors in the company's expenses.Analysis:1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act questioning the Tribunal's decision on the disallowance of expenses claimed under 'consumable stores' in the profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer found that the bills and vouchers for the expenses were not produced, and no stock register was maintained. Consequently, a disallowance of 10% of the expenses was added to the income. The Ist Appellate Authority reduced the disallowance to 5%, stating it would meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal later deleted the 5% disallowance, citing an increase in turnover and reduced expenses. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal erred in not considering the lack of bills and vouchers as justification for disallowance. The Court reinstated the 5% disallowance, emphasizing the necessity of supporting documentation for claimed expenses.2. The second issue revolved around the inclusion of expenses related to conveyance and telephone of directors in the company's expenses. The Assessing Officer initially deleted 20% of these expenses, which was later upheld by the Ist Appellate Authority. However, the Tribunal referenced a decision of the Gujarat High Court to support the inclusion of these expenses. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that the expenses on telephone and conveyance should be treated in line with previous assessment years. The Court found the Gujarat High Court decision applicable in the present case, leading to a ruling in favor of the assessee on this issue.In conclusion, the High Court partially allowed the appeal, upholding the disallowance of 5% of expenses claimed under 'consumable stores' while ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the inclusion of expenses related to conveyance and telephone of directors in the company's expenses.