2014 (1) TMI 1911 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal favors construction contractor in expense disallowance appeal

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the deletion of a significant portion of disallowed expenses, citing lack of substantial reasons for disallowance and ... Disallowance of expenses - assessee has produced only hand-made vouchers for verification - HELD THAT:- We find that there was no material or cogent reason before the A.O. to make the impugned disallowance. The mere fact that some of the vouchers were self-made cannot be a reason enough to disallow the expenses on ad hoc basis. It was open to the A.O. to disallow expenses to the extent he is not satisfied with vouchers. But even in such a case he is to set out the cogent reason for doing so. We have also noted that in the immediately preceding year this very Bench of the Tribunal has deleted the similar disallowance in assessee's own case - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:- Disallowance of expenses by AO- Ad hoc disallowance upheld by CIT(A)- Appeal against CIT(A) orderAnalysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of expenses by AOThe Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed expenses of Rs. 31,00,000 claimed by the assessee under various heads due to lack of convincing documentary evidence. The AO noted that some expenses were supported only by hand-made vouchers, raising doubts about the entire expenditure's deductibility. Consequently, the AO added back the disallowed amount to the income.Issue 2: Ad hoc disallowance upheld by CIT(A)The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) against the AO's disallowance. The CIT(A) acknowledged the AO's concerns but upheld a reduced disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000. The CIT(A) considered the nature of the appellant's business as a construction contractor, where having printed vouchers for all transactions might not be feasible. The CIT(A) relied on precedents and comparative data to justify the reduced disallowance, emphasizing the increase in gross profit ratio and the lack of specific unvouched expenditures.Issue 3: Appeal against CIT(A) orderBoth the AO and the assessee were dissatisfied with the CIT(A)'s decision. The AO believed the disallowance should have been confirmed, while the assessee argued for the full deletion of the disallowance. The matter was brought before the Appellate Tribunal, which reviewed the case and found no cogent reason for the impugned disallowance. Referring to a previous year's decision, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of Rs. 30,00,000 and directed the AO to delete the remaining Rs. 1,00,000. The Tribunal rejected the AO's grievance and allowed the assessee's appeal.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the deletion of a significant portion of the disallowed expenses, emphasizing the lack of substantial reasons for the disallowance and considering the nature of the appellant's business. The Tribunal's decision favored the assessee's position, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the allowance of the assessee's Cross Objection.