Ad hoc salary disallowance and van rent deletion restore exemption under s.10(23C)(iiiad) r.w. Rule 2BC

ITAT Amritsar allowed the assessee-educational society's appeal, holding that the ad hoc disallowance of 10% of salary expenditure, despite EPF deduction, was unsustainable as the AO identified no specific defect or lacuna in the books. The Tribunal directed deletion of disallowances of Rs. 1,46,100 and Rs. 2,93,100. It further upheld deletion of van rent entries, treating them as contra entries wrongly recorded on both debit and credit sides of the income and expenditure account, and ordered their removal from both sides. Consequent reduction of gross receipts below Rs. 1 crore rendered the assessee eligible for exemption under s.10(23C)(iiiad) r.w. Rule 2BC.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses related to different heads.
2. Deduction under section 10(23C)(iiiad) read with Rule 2BC of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
3. Pending appeal for grant of registration under section 12A.
4. Ad hoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.
5. Treatment of "van rent" in income and expenditure account.
6. Consideration of turnover for eligibility under section 10(23C).

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the disallowance of expenses by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) at a rate of 10% without specifying the particular nature of the disallowable expenses. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed amounts related to different heads of expenses. The appellant contended that the disallowance lacked proper scrutiny and documentation, especially concerning salary payments to employees and various expenses. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the AO's addition was arbitrary and directed the deletion of the disallowance amounts.

2. The appellant sought a deduction under section 10(23C)(iiiad) read with Rule 2BC of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, based on the argument that the receipt of "van rent" should be deducted from the turnover to bring it below one crore, making them eligible for the benefit. The ITAT agreed with the appellant's contention, emphasizing that the "van rent" amount was recorded on both the debit and credit sides of the income and expenditure account. By deducting this amount from both sides, the turnover fell below the threshold, warranting the allowance of the benefit under section 10(23C).

3. The appellant had a pending appeal for registration under section 12A, which was granted with effect from the assessment year 2016-17 for "Education." The ITAT noted this registration and its relevance to the appellant's eligibility for certain deductions and benefits under the Income Tax Act.

4. The ITAT criticized the AO for making ad hoc disallowances without specifying the grounds or lacunae for such actions. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of proper verification and documentation supporting the disallowances, leading to the direction to delete the disallowance amounts.

5. Concerning the treatment of "van rent" in the income and expenditure account, the ITAT supported the appellant's argument that this amount should be deducted from both sides of the account to accurately reflect the turnover and eligibility for specific benefits under the Income Tax Act.

6. Finally, the ITAT allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the disallowance amounts and considering the turnover after adjusting the "van rent" amount to determine the appellant's eligibility under section 10(23C). The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper scrutiny and documentation in assessing expenses and determining eligibility for deductions and benefits under the Income Tax Act.

---