2021 (4) TMI 109 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rulings: cash deposits, depreciation limit, director's remuneration

Linus Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO, Ward-16 (1) Hyderabad

The tribunal sent back issues related to unexplained cash deposits and expenditure under sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act for fresh ... Unexplained cash deposits and un-explained expenditure u/s 68 and 69C - HELD THAT:- We notice that the Revenue is also unable to rebut the clinching fact that the Assessing Officer has not discussed at all the cash balances in the relevant accounting period from 01-04-2011 to 31-03-2012 before making the impugned additions. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore both these issues back to the Assessing Officer for the purpose of finalising afresh reconciliation of the assessee's cash in hand and balances viz-a-viz impugned negative balance as well as investments - These two grounds are taken as accepted for statistical purposes therefore. Disallowance depreciation on motor vehicles - AO and CIT-A disallowed the assessee's claim to the tune of 50% thereby alleging personal usage element of the corresponding assets - HELD THAT:- We find no reason to sustain the impugned reasoning in principle. More so when the assessee has not added any new asset in the corresponding block in the relevant previous year. The fact also remains that personal usage per se of the office vehicles cannot be altogether ruled out. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restrict the impugned depreciation disallowance to lumpsum amount of ₹ 1.5 lakhs only with a rider that the same shall not be taken as a precedent. The assessee's third substantive grievance is partly accepted in assessee's favour. Disallowance of director's remuneration claim - taking note of her clarification that she was not playing any key role. All this made the Assessing Officer to invoke the Section 40A(2) terming the impugned payment as excessive and unreasonable - HELD THAT:- We are unable to agree with the impugned amount disallowance as well since the said clarification had come on 16-01-2015 whereas we are in A.Y. 2012-13 only. It was made clear to the AO that the said director had transformed the companies fortunes in designing and internal logistics which in turn helped it to secure in bulk corporate orders in regular course of business. We thus are of the opinion that both the lower authorities' have erred in law and on facts in disallowing the impugned director's remuneration claim.The same is directed to be deleted. Issues involved:1. Unexplained cash deposits and unexplained expenditure under sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act.2. Disallowance of depreciation on motor vehicles.3. Disallowance of director's remuneration claim.Detailed Analysis:1. The first issue pertains to unexplained cash deposits and expenditure under sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contested the additions made by the Assessing Officer based on isolated entries without considering the overall cash balances and investments. The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not discuss the cash balances for the relevant period before making the additions. Consequently, the tribunal decided to send back these issues to the Assessing Officer for a fresh reconciliation of the cash balances and investments. The grounds were accepted for statistical purposes.2. The second issue involves the disallowance of depreciation on motor vehicles. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed 50% of the depreciation, citing personal usage of high-end luxury vehicles by the directors. The tribunal found the reasoning unsatisfactory, especially since no new assets were added to the block in the previous year. Acknowledging the possibility of personal usage of office vehicles, the tribunal decided to restrict the disallowance to a lump sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, emphasizing that this decision should not set a precedent. The tribunal partly accepted the assessee's grievance on this issue.3. The final issue concerns the disallowance of director's remuneration claim amounting to Rs. 7,20,000 for one of the directors. The Assessing Officer disallowed the payment under Section 40A(2) of the Act, considering it excessive and unreasonable. However, the tribunal disagreed with this disallowance, noting that the director's clarification regarding her role was provided after the relevant assessment year. The tribunal recognized the director's contributions to the company's success and overturned the disallowance, directing for the amount to be deleted. The tribunal emphasized that necessary computations should follow as per the law. As a result, the assessee's appeal was treated as partly allowed in the mentioned terms.