Tribunal upholds CIT(A) on expense disallowance under section 37(1) and 40(a)(ia), remands section 14A issue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on the disallowance of expenses under section 37(1) and section 40(a)(ia), while remanding the issue of disallowance under section 14A back to the CIT(A) for re-examination. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenses under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C/194I.
3. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act.
4. General grounds of appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Expenses under Section 37(1):
The Revenue challenged the disallowance of Rs. 21,90,000 out of total expenses of Rs. 73,77,381. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these expenses on an ad-hoc basis, citing excessive claims and lack of justification relative to the quantum results declared by the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, referencing a previous Tribunal decision for the assessment year 2008-09, where similar disallowances were deleted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, noting that disallowances made on an ad-hoc basis without pointing out specific defects in the books of accounts or vouchers are not permissible. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO did not provide concrete reasons for considering the expenses excessive.

2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of TDS:
The AO disallowed Rs. 7,02,261 under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on monthly maintenance charges paid to housing societies, arguing that these payments were under an implied contract attracting TDS under sections 194C/194I. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the payments were merely reimbursements to the societies for common expenses incurred on behalf of its members, thus not constituting a contractual relationship necessitating TDS. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, agreeing that the payments were in the nature of reimbursements and not liable for TDS, referencing the principle of mutuality and the decision in Mistur Shipping Agency Private Limited.

3. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The AO invoked Rule 8D to disallow Rs. 3,00,11,791 related to exempt income, while the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 90,103 for demat charges. The Tribunal noted that the AO’s dissatisfaction with the assessee’s claim of no expenses related to exempt income was implied, not explicitly recorded. The Tribunal referenced the Delhi High Court’s decision in Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd., which held that explicit recording of dissatisfaction is not mandatory if the AO’s analysis implies it. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) to re-examine the requirement of satisfaction and, if satisfied, to adjudicate the disallowance under Rule 8D afresh, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

4. General Grounds of Appeal:
The Tribunal noted that grounds 4 to 6 were general in nature and did not require specific adjudication.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decisions on the disallowance of expenses under section 37(1) and section 40(a)(ia), while remanding the issue of disallowance under section 14A back to the CIT(A) for re-examination. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The decision was pronounced on 15th May 2018.

---