Expenditure disallowance deletion upheld but cost of goods sold addition remanded for fresh consideration with proper verification

ITAT Indore upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of 10% expenditure disallowance where assessee provided party-wise details and deducted TDS, noting AO had separately referred TDS non-filing to TDS wing. However, ITAT remanded cost of goods sold addition back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration with proper working and AO hearing, finding CIT(A) accepted assessee's changed submission without verification. ITAT restored section 40A(3) disallowance for cash payments, holding CIT(A) failed to examine assessee's original claim and newer stand lacked factual support.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Restriction of disallowance of expenses by the CIT (A).
2. Deletion of addition regarding the determination of cost of goods sold.
3. Deletion of addition under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Restriction of Disallowance of Expenses:

The primary issue is whether the CIT (A) erred in restricting the disallowance of Rs. 23,26,323/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to Rs. 8,63,293/-. The AO disallowed 10% of the total expenses claimed by the assessee due to the non-production of books of account, bills, vouchers, or any evidence to substantiate the expenses. The CIT (A) reduced the disallowance by observing that the AO made the disallowance without any basis and noted that the assessee had shown a reasonable net profit margin of 21% on total sales, which was fair in the real estate business. The CIT (A) further stated that the AO should have applied Section 145 if there was doubt about the correctness of the expenditure claimed, rather than making an arbitrary disallowance. The Tribunal found merit in the CIT (A)'s decision to grant partial relief because the assessee provided party-wise details and deducted TDS on payments, which justified the reduction in disallowance.

2. Deletion of Addition Regarding Cost of Goods Sold:

The second issue concerns the deletion of an addition of Rs. 96,30,181/- made by the AO on account of the determination of the cost of goods sold. The AO found anomalies in the valuation of closing stock and cost of goods sold, particularly regarding brokerage expenses, which were claimed as part of the cost of goods sold. The CIT (A) deleted the addition, accepting the assessee's explanation that the brokerage expenses were actually land-filling expenses necessary for development. The CIT (A) also noted that the development activity spread over several years, and any overestimation of costs would be revenue-neutral in the future. However, the Tribunal found the CIT (A)'s acceptance of the new explanation without a remand report from the AO to be unjustified. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT (A) for fresh consideration, allowing the AO an opportunity to verify the claims.

3. Deletion of Addition Under Section 40A(3):

The final issue involves the deletion of an addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- under section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/-. The AO disallowed the amount because the assessee failed to provide evidence that the payment was made to a farmer without a bank account, as initially claimed. The CIT (A) deleted the disallowance, citing precedents where cash payments were allowed due to business exigencies. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee presented different justifications before the AO and CIT (A) without substantiating either. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to demonstrate valid reasons to circumvent section 40A(3) and upheld the AO's disallowance, stating that the statutory disallowance was applicable due to the lack of credible evidence from the assessee.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s partial relief on the disallowance of expenses but remanded the issue of cost of goods sold back to the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also upheld the AO's disallowance under section 40A(3), concluding that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the cash payments. The appeal was partly allowed in favor of the revenue.

---