2022 (1) TMI 90 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Success: Proper Documentation Key to Substantiate Expenditure Claims

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the importance of providing proper documentation to substantiate expenditure claims and ... Disallowance to 2% of cost of material - assessee has failed to discharge it's onus as per section 37 - HELD THAT:- All the necessary particulars pertaining to these three heads of material cost, construction and other expenses involving varying sums. It is an admitted fact that the CIT(A) has simply reproduced assessment findings while restricting these three heads of disallowance(s) to a paltry percentage ranging between 1 to 2% (supra). The fact also remains that both the learned lower authorities are fair enough in not pinpointing any kind of abnormal trend in the assessee's corresponding expenditure claims as well. Faced with this situation and in larger interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer's action disallowing 20% of cost of material, 10% of construction and other expenses involving disallowance of 28,19,8.54 and 6 (in crores) deserved to be partly upheld to the extent of 50% thereof on lumpsum basis with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. We make it clear that we have partly reversed the CIT(A)'s findings under challenge and restore the three impugned disallowances to the extent of 50% of the corresponding sums added in the assessment order. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Issues Involved:- Disallowance of expenses under section 37 of the Income Tax Act- Justification for restricting disallowances made by the Assessing Officer- Ad hoc disallowance of other expenses- Assessment of disallowances on estimation basisAnalysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of Expenses under Section 37 of the Income Tax ActThe Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of expenses for the A.Y. 2014-15 under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) had restricted the disallowances to lower amounts without proper justification. The CIT(A) had partially allowed the appeal, considering the turnover, nature of business, and the fact that major expenses were paid through cheques. The Revenue argued that the Assessing Officer rightly disallowed the corresponding expenditure claims on an estimation basis due to lack of supportive evidence. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's stand, noting that the assessee had not provided all necessary particulars for the expenses claimed. The Tribunal partly upheld the Assessing Officer's disallowances to the extent of 50% on a lumpsum basis, emphasizing that it should not set a precedent.Issue 2: Justification for Restricting Disallowances Made by the Assessing OfficerThe Assessing Officer had disallowed 20% of the cost of material, 10% of construction costs, and an ad hoc amount under 'Other expenses.' The CIT(A) had restricted these disallowances to lower percentages, citing lack of proper vouching for the expenses. The Tribunal acknowledged the Assessing Officer's rationale for disallowances based on estimation but found the CIT(A)'s restrictions inadequate. The Tribunal considered the lack of abnormal trends in the assessee's expenditure claims but emphasized the importance of providing necessary documentation. Ultimately, the Tribunal partly reversed the CIT(A)'s findings and restored the disallowances to 50% of the amounts added in the assessment order.Issue 3: Ad Hoc Disallowance of Other ExpensesThe Assessing Officer had made an ad hoc disallowance under 'Other expenses' due to the inability of the assessee to justify the entire claim of expenditure. The CIT(A) had reduced this disallowance, considering the turnover and nature of business. The Tribunal agreed that the ad hoc disallowance was on the higher side and restricted it to 2% of the total amount claimed under 'Other expenses.' The Tribunal directed the disallowance to meet the ends of justice based on the turnover and nature of the business.In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the importance of providing proper documentation to substantiate expenditure claims and justifying disallowances made by the Assessing Officer based on estimation. The Tribunal restored the disallowances to 50% of the amounts added in the assessment order, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles.This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, addressing each issue involved and highlighting the key arguments and decisions made by the Tribunal.