2022 (6) TMI 114 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's Appeals Dismissed for Lack of Evidence

The Tribunal dismissed the Assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities. The Assessee ... Addition of interest payment u/s 36(1)(iii) - relief of interest was granted to the extent of amount of loan which was vehicle loan and for business purposes - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) while upholding the addition has noted that Assessee had given Rs. 1,77,99,844/- advance against share application money, no shares were allotted within a reasonable period of 60 days and Assessee had also not given any evidence to show that the shares were allotted on the share application money advanced by the Assessee. He has further given a finding that the advancing for share application money has not been proved to be for business purpose. As far as other interest free amounts advanced, he has given a finding that Assessee has not proved that the loan was given for commercial expediency. Before us no material has been placed by Assessee to point to any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A). We thus find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of assessee is dismissed. Disallowance u/s 40(ia) on account of non deduction of TDS - CIT(A) has granted relief to the extent of the TDS that was deducted and paid by the Assessee till the filing of return - HELD THAT:- With respect to the amount of Rs. 8,51,234/-, the disallowance of which has been upheld, he has given a finding that no evidence has been placed by assessee to demonstrate that the required TDS was deducted and deposited with the appropriate authorities. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed by the Assessee. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Assessee is dismissed. Addition u/s 40A(3) - assessee had made payments in cash aggregating to Rs. 6,00,000/- - HELD THAT:- We find that CIT(A) while upholding the addition has noted that Assessee has neither given the details or justification for cash payment before Assessing Officer and him. Before us also, no material has been placed by Assessee to point any fallacy in the finding of CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Assessee dismissed. Disallowance of interest expenses on FBT holding it to be penal in nature - HELD THAT:- Before us, no material has been placed by Assessee to point any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and thus the ground of Assessee is dismissed. Issues Involved:- Appeal against consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13.- Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.- Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.- Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act.- Disallowance of expenses on 'Income Tax Provisions-FBT.'Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act:The Assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 62,52,021 under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest payment claiming it was not backed by commercial expediency. The CIT(A) granted partial relief but upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal found no fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings as the Assessee failed to prove the commercial purpose of the advances made, leading to the dismissal of the Assessee's appeal.Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:The Assessee contested the addition of Rs. 8,51,234 under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on commission payments. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount for non-compliance with TDS provisions. The CIT(A) upheld part of the disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision as the Assessee failed to provide evidence of TDS deduction, resulting in the dismissal of the Assessee's appeal.Issue 3: Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act:The Assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 6,00,000 under Section 40A(3) for cash payments without justification. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount due to lack of commercial expediency. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal found no evidence presented by the Assessee to refute the CIT(A)'s findings, leading to the dismissal of the Assessee's appeal.Issue 4: Disallowance of expenses on 'Income Tax Provisions-FBT':The Assessee disputed the addition of Rs. 1,83,853 paid for 'Income Tax Provisions-FBT.' The Assessing Officer considered the payment penal and disallowed it. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Assessee's appeal.The Tribunal dismissed both appeals due to the Assessee's failure to provide sufficient evidence or justification for the challenged expenses and disallowances. The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities in each case, leading to the rejection of the Assessee's appeals for both Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13.