2019 (6) TMI 772 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal dismisses revenue's appeal, upholds deletion of adhoc expenses, remands fixed assets issue to AO

DCIT Circle-7 (3) (2), Mumbai Versus M/s Polycom Unified Communications Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

DCIT Circle-7 (3) (2), Mumbai Versus M/s Polycom Unified Communications Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Non-consideration of remand report by CIT(A).2. Deletion of additions on account of cost of fixed assets.3. Deletion of adhoc disallowances on various expenses (Salary, Contribution to Funds, Staff Welfare, Training & Seminar, Travelling & Conveyance, Facilities Maintenance, Utility, Freight, Recruitment & Relocation).4. Deletion of 100% disallowances on Business Promotion & Advertisement, Legal & Professional Fees, and Outsource Service Cost.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Non-consideration of Remand Report by CIT(A):The revenue contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider the remand report before passing the appellate order. The Tribunal noted that during the first appellate proceeding, the assessee submitted additional evidence which was admitted by the CIT(A) and forwarded to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a remand report. The AO submitted the remand report, which was considered by the CIT(A) along with the assessee's response. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had duly considered the remand report and thus, dismissed this ground of appeal.2. Deletion of Additions on Account of Cost of Fixed Assets:The AO made additions due to discrepancies in the dates of invoices related to fixed assets. The CIT(A) deleted the additions after considering the remand report. The Tribunal noted that the AO identified specific discrepancies in the acquisition of assets, such as the mismatch of dates and the improbability of the assets being put to use before purchase or within an unrealistic timeframe. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) unjustified in deleting the entire addition without addressing these discrepancies. Therefore, the Tribunal restored this issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after verification of facts and evidence.3. Deletion of Adhoc Disallowances on Various Expenses:The AO made 25% adhoc disallowances on several expenses due to the lack of documentary evidence. The CIT(A) deleted these disallowances after considering the remand report, which found no specific discrepancies in the expenses. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not disputed the genuineness of the expenses but rather the quantum. The Tribunal found that without specifying the genuineness of expenses, adhoc disallowances were not justified. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of these disallowances by the CIT(A).4. Deletion of 100% Disallowances on Business Promotion & Advertisement, Legal & Professional Fees, and Outsource Service Cost:The AO made 100% disallowances on these expenses due to the absence of proof or vouchers. The CIT(A) deleted these disallowances after considering the remand report, which found no discrepancies in the vouchers and books of accounts. The Tribunal examined the disallowances and found that the AO had not doubted the genuineness of the expenses but had issues with the quantum and procedural aspects like TDS. The Tribunal concluded that without doubting the genuineness, 100% disallowances were not justified. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of these disallowances by the CIT(A).Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the non-consideration of the remand report and upheld the deletion of adhoc and 100% disallowances on various expenses. However, it restored the issue of additions on account of fixed assets to the AO for fresh adjudication. The appeal of the revenue was partly allowed.