2021 (9) TMI 1537 - HC - Income Tax

Karnataka HC sets aside ITAT orders on speed money expenditure disallowance due to inconsistent reasoning and remands matter

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/s HASSAN HAJEE & CO.

The Karnataka HC set aside ITAT orders regarding disallowance of speed money expenditure and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The Tribunal had ... Disallowance of speed money expenditure - perusal of the loose sheets found in search - ITAT while considering the case of the Revenue challenging the allowance of 90% of speed money observed that “mere perusal of the loose sheets it is clear that about 10% of the cash payments was made to the officials of the port trust” and disallowance to the extent of 10% is just and proper. HELD THAT:- This order amounts to allowing the appeals filed by the assessee which are still pending where the challenge is made to the extent of disallowance of 10%. On further miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee strangely the Tribunal has held that no finding has been rendered as to the nature of payments found in loose sheets which is ex-facie contrary to the finding recorded in the order dated 02.05.2017. This would indicate that the Tribunal has not applied its mind while arriving at the conclusion. Tribunal being the last fact finding authority ought to have discussed the factual aspects, more importantly when the Assessing Officer has made efforts to discover the tax evasion, placing reliance on the incriminating materials seized and the statements of the relevant persons recorded. Instead of adjudicating on the challenge made by the Revenue, passing the orders to the effect of deciding the subject matter of the appeals filed by the assessee which were not before the Tribunal, amounts to perversity and suffers from patent illegality. The impugned orders lack application of mind and reasoning. Given the circumstances, we have no other option except to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration, keeping open all the rights and contentions of the parties sans answering the substantial questions of law. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the Tribunal's finding regarding the nature of payments found in loose sheets.2. Tribunal's decision on disallowance of unauthorized payments to port officials.3. Tribunal's decision on disallowance of speed money claimed as labor charges.4. Tribunal's handling of contradictory statements by the assessee.5. Tribunal's consideration of evidence found during search and investigations.6. Tribunal's decision on disallowance based on inadequate supporting documents.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Legality of the Tribunal's Finding Regarding the Nature of Payments Found in Loose SheetsThe Tribunal concluded that it did not render any finding regarding the nature of the payments found in the loose sheets. The Revenue challenged this, arguing that the Tribunal's decision was contrary to the material on record and factually incorrect. The Tribunal's clarification in the miscellaneous petitions that no finding was rendered as to the nature of payments found in the loose sheets was deemed ex-facie contrary to its earlier order dated 02.05.2017.Issue 2: Tribunal's Decision on Disallowance of Unauthorized Payments to Port OfficialsThe Tribunal set aside the disallowance of unauthorized payments made to port officials, which the Revenue argued was perverse and ignored evidence seized during the search operations. The Tribunal was criticized for not applying its mind and not discussing the factual aspects thoroughly, especially when the Assessing Officer had made efforts to discover tax evasion based on incriminating materials and statements recorded.Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision on Disallowance of Speed Money Claimed as Labor ChargesThe Tribunal deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of speed money claimed as labor charges. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal ignored contradictory statements given by the assessee during appellate proceedings and investigations conducted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal's decision to allow 90% of the speed money charges without adjudicating the Revenue's challenge was considered unjustifiable.Issue 4: Tribunal's Handling of Contradictory Statements by the AssesseeThe Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in ignoring contradictory statements given by the assessee during appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) and during investigations. The Tribunal's decision to delete disallowances based on these statements was seen as lacking valid reasoning and contrary to the evidence on record.Issue 5: Tribunal's Consideration of Evidence Found During Search and InvestigationsThe Tribunal's decision was criticized for ignoring evidence found during the course of search and post-search investigations, which suggested that the expenses claimed were not genuine. The Assessing Officer had extensively considered incriminating materials and statements of relevant persons, which the Tribunal failed to adequately address.Issue 6: Tribunal's Decision on Disallowance Based on Inadequate Supporting DocumentsThe Tribunal's decision to delete the disallowance of labor charges claimed on the basis of inadequate supporting documents was challenged. The Revenue pointed out that the supporting documents suffered from various discrepancies, which the Tribunal ignored in its judgment.Conclusion:The High Court found that the Tribunal's orders lacked application of mind and reasoning, leading to a conclusion of perversity and patent illegality. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The Tribunal was directed to club these matters along with the appeals filed by the assessee and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, considering the search and post-search investigation reports of the Assessing Authority. The Tribunal was instructed to expedite the process while providing a reasonable opportunity for both parties to be heard.