2016 (7) TMI 910 - AT - Income Tax

Assessing Officer Disallows Personnel Cost Increase, Tribunal Overturns Decision

Portman Advisory Private Limited (Formerly known as Portman Real Estate India Private Limited) Versus The Dy. CIT-3 (2), Mumbai

The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the personnel cost increase, citing lack of justification due to no corresponding increase in income. The ... Disallowance of business expenditure - ratio of personnel cost - nexus between the expenditure incurred and the business of the assessee - only objection of both the authorities is that the assessee was suffering loss but had paid higher salary to its employees - why was the assessee not reducing his expenses proportionately when in was earning lesser income - Held that:- There is a basic and fundamental flaw in the approach of the AO and the FAA. They have tried to step in to the proverbial shoes of the businessman. It is not their domain to decide as to how much expenditure is to be incurred or under which it head it has to incurred. Assessee has to decide its business needs and no other person is authorised to do so. Whether or not to incur any expenditure or how much expenditure to be incurred is the prerogative of an assessee. The employee are not hit by the provisions of section 40A of the Act, so, the FAA was not justified in questioning the reasonableness of the expenditure. Both of them have ignored the principle of commercial expediency. Phrase commercial expediency would include such purpose as is expected by the assessee to advance its business interest and may include measures taken for preservation, protection or advancement of its business interests. AO has no role to decide the ‘Laxman-Rekha’ of ‘preservation, protection or advancement of his business interest. ’ Reasonableness of an expenditure cannot and should not be the deciding factor while allowing an expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act. In the case before us, both the authorities have misdirected themselves and ventured in to prohibited territory. Therefore, their action cannot be endorsed. Reversing the order of the FAA, we decide the effective ground of appeal in favour of the assessee. Issues:1. Disallowance of personnel cost increase by the Assessing Officer.2. Justifiability of increased salary expenses by the assessee.3. Commercial expediency in incurring expenditure.4. Comparison of expenses and income by the authorities.5. Compliance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.Issue 1: Disallowance of Personnel Cost IncreaseThe Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of &8377; 58.66 lakhs out of the total personnel cost of &8377; 1.53 crores, citing that the increase in salary expenses was not justified due to no increase in income. The AO found no nexus between the expenditure and the business of the assessee, leading to the disallowance. The First Appellate Authority upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing the excessive expenditure incurred without a corresponding increase in income. The FAA concluded that the salary expenses were not wholly and exclusively for the business purpose, resulting in the affirmation of the AO's order.Issue 2: Justifiability of Increased Salary ExpensesThe assessee argued that the salary expenditure included various entitlements and allowances, aiming to motivate employees to work harder and secure projects. The assessee contended that the increase in employee costs was a commercial judgment to enhance business prospects. The FAA, however, highlighted the disproportionate increase in expenses compared to income, questioning the reasonableness of the expenditure from a businessman's perspective. The authorities failed to acknowledge the principle of commercial expediency, leading to the disallowance of the expenditure.Issue 3: Commercial Expediency in Incurring ExpenditureThe Tribunal emphasized that the AO and the FAA overstepped by questioning the reasonableness of the expenditure, as it is the prerogative of the assessee to decide business needs. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal clarified that commercial expediency should guide expenditure decisions, not the subjective views of tax authorities. The Tribunal highlighted that the reasonableness of an expenditure should not be the sole criterion for disallowance, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee due to the misdirection of the authorities.Issue 4: Comparison of Expenses and IncomeBoth the AO and the FAA compared the figures of expenses and income for the relevant years, concluding that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purpose. However, the Tribunal pointed out that the authorities failed to respect the business decisions of the assessee and wrongly questioned the commercial expediency of the expenditure, leading to the reversal of the FAA's order in favor of the assessee.Issue 5: Compliance with Income Tax Act ProvisionsThe Tribunal, in its final decision, highlighted that the authorities erred in questioning the justification of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. By emphasizing the principles of commercial expediency and the subjective nature of business decisions, the Tribunal overturned the FAA's order and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing the importance of respecting the business judgment of the assessee in expenditure matters.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, authorities' decisions, and the Tribunal's final ruling, providing a detailed overview of the legal proceedings and the reasoning behind the judgment.