2019 (1) TMI 1606 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT upholds CIT(A)'s decision on employee contributions & expenses, directs reexamination.

ACIT CIR 6 (3) (2), Mumbai Versus M/s Khandelwal Laborataries Pvt. Ltd.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions on account of employee contributions to Provident Fund, ESIC, and Family Pension, as timely ... Addition on a/c of Employee's contribution to Provident Fund, ESIC and Family Pension - sum paid only a some days before due date of filing the Income Tax Return - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) while appreciating the facts of the present case had rightly considered that all the payments barring a few days delay have been paid on or before filing of the return of income and therefore relying on the judgements of the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Ghatgi Patil Transport Ltd. [2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Hindusthan Organic Chemical Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 477 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and had rightly allowed this ground of appeal. No new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed. Addition on account of Clinical Support Expenses - HELD THAT:- We find that Ld. CIT(A) while appreciating the facts of the present case had rightly relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench [2016 (8) TMI 898 - ITAT MUMBAI] in assessee’s own case, wherein identical issue has already been decided by ITAT by deleting the disallowance - no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue Addition being disallowance made @20% - most expenses had been incurred in cash and as the claim remained unsubstantiated, element of personal expenditure was implied - HELD THAT:- There is merit in the contentions that the assessee, being a pharma company, has to necessarily incur expenses for sales promotion. Hence, we agree with the submission that there should not be any adhoc disallowance out of travelling expenses incurred by sales personnel and other employees. In respect of other expenses, it is submitted that the assessee has furnished the details, but the AO has not examined the same - ad-hoc disallowance has been made by the AO and deleted by Ld CIT(A), without examining or commenting upon the details furnished by the assessee. In view of the same, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the AO. While examining the same, as discussed above, there is no requirement of making any disallowance out of expenses incurred by employees, unless any specific deficiency is identified. In respect of other travelling expenses, the AO shall examine the details furnished by the assessee and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. The assessee is also directed to furnish the details that may be called for by the AO. Accordingly, this ground is treated as allowed. Issues:1. Deletion of addition on account of Employee's contribution to Provident Fund, ESIC, and Family Pension2. Deletion of addition on account of Clinical Support Expenses3. Deletion of addition due to disallowance made for expenses incurred in cash4. General grounds raised by the revenueAnalysis:Issue 1: Deletion of addition on account of Employee's contribution to Provident Fund, ESIC, and Family PensionThe revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 34,47,825 on account of employee contributions. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal based on the timely payment of contributions before the income tax return filing date. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing judgments from the Bombay High Court and lack of new evidence to overturn the decision. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision, and the revenue's ground was dismissed.Issue 2: Deletion of addition on account of Clinical Support ExpensesThe revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 63,13,302 for clinical support expenses. The CIT(A) relied on a previous ITAT decision related to the appellant's case for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 to justify the deletion. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning, noting the absence of new evidence or contradictory judgments. Consequently, the revenue's ground was dismissed.Issue 3: Deletion of addition due to disallowance made for expenses incurred in cashThe revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 1,29,40,870 for disallowance made by the AO. The ITAT noted that the AO's disallowance lacked a basis and documentary proof, leading to the CIT(A) allowing the appeal. However, the ITAT found discrepancies in the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the lack of bills/vouchers and justification for the disallowed expenses. The ITAT directed a fresh examination by the AO to assess specific deficiencies and instructed the appellant to provide necessary details. This ground was treated as allowed.Issue 4 & 5: General grounds raised by the revenueThe revenue raised general grounds that did not require specific adjudication, resulting in the appeal being partly allowed with no cost order.In conclusion, the ITAT's judgment addressed the revenue's challenges on various grounds, emphasizing the importance of timely payments, past precedents, lack of new evidence, and the need for detailed examination of expenses. The decision provided a comprehensive analysis of each issue raised, ensuring a fair and reasoned outcome.