ITAT overturns 30% ad hoc expense disallowance for mobile distributor citing lack of specific deficiencies in books

ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against 30% ad hoc disallowance of expenses for non-maintenance of proper bills and vouchers. The tribunal held that tax authorities failed to identify specific deficiencies in books of account and made excessive/unreasonable expense determination without proper basis. Despite assessee operating competitive mobile phone distribution business across Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttrakhand with accepted revenue of Rs. 576,98,65,384, authorities made wholesale disallowance merely for improper voucher formats and missing signatures. The tribunal ruled such ad hoc disallowance without establishing specific defects was unsustainable under law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Low income in comparison to high loans/advances/investment in shares.
2. High revenue from operations and no scrutiny in preceding 5 assessment years.
3. Large refund claimed out of advance tax.
4. Large value claim of refund.

Summary:

Issue 1: Low Income vs. High Loans/Advances/Investment in Shares
The assessee, a private limited company engaged in the distributorship of OPPO Mobiles India Private Ltd, had its return of income at a loss selected for scrutiny. The AO observed that the assessee did not maintain proper bills and vouchers for various expenses, leading to a disallowance of 30% of the total expenses claimed. The AO cited several case laws to support the disallowance, concluding that the expenses were excessive, unreasonable, and included personal expenses.

Issue 2: High Revenue from Operations and No Scrutiny in Preceding 5 Assessment Years
The assessee's high revenue from operations was scrutinized, but the AO's primary concern was the non-maintenance of proper bills and vouchers. The AO disallowed 30% of the expenses on an ad hoc basis, stating that the expenses were not wholly and exclusively for business purposes as per Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the expenses were mostly in cash and not adequately supported by proper bills and vouchers.

Issue 3: Large Refund Claimed Out of Advance Tax
The assessee argued that the expenditures were as per the Auditor's financial account and that all relevant ledgers, bills, and vouchers were produced before the tax authorities. The AR pointed out that the CIT(A) made a sweeping observation that 90% of the expenditures were incurred in cash, but the actual cash expenses were only 36% of the total expenses. The AR also argued that the advance to staff was adjusted against actual expenditures supported by bills and vouchers.

Issue 4: Large Value Claim of Refund
The DR supported the AO's decision, suggesting that the expenses were more in the nature of personal expenditure. The DR also suggested restoring the matter to the AO for verification of the vouchers. However, the Tribunal noted that the tax authorities did not point out any specific deficiencies in the books of account and inferred that the expenses were excessive and unreasonable without proper justification. The Tribunal observed that the nature of the assessee's business required certain day-to-day expenditures that might not always be in proper voucher formats or signed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, stating that the tax authorities' ad hoc disallowance of 30% of the expenses was not sustainable under the law. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted, and the appeal was allowed. The order was pronounced in open court on 11/01/2024.

---