Ad-hoc disallowances must have scientific rational basis, not arbitrary percentages - 20% disallowance set aside

ITAT Bangalore held that ad-hoc disallowances must be based on scientific and rational basis, not arbitrary percentages. The AO's 20% disallowance was set aside as it failed to consider assessee's financial data from earlier years. For wage expenses, ITAT allowed Rs. 1 lakh disallowance considering slight increase in labor costs. Freight expenses disallowance was deleted as expenses remained proportionate to sales compared to previous years. Interest expenses disallowance was largely deleted except Rs. 20,000 ad-hoc disallowance for non-submission of supporting documents. Appeal partly allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) in this appeal are:

• Whether the ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of certain expenses (freight, custom duty, interest, and wages) made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the absence of documentary evidence is justified under the Income Tax Act.
• Whether the disallowance made on an arbitrary and non-scientific basis without considering the assessee's financial data of earlier years is sustainable.
• Whether the partial relief granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) in respect of custom duty and confirmation of disallowance on other expenses withstands scrutiny.
• Whether the quantum of disallowance on wages and interest expenses can be rationally determined considering the assessee's financial trends and loan genuineness.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Legitimacy of Ad-hoc Disallowance of Expenses in Absence of Documentary Evidence

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Income Tax Act mandates that the onus to prove the genuineness and correctness of expenses claimed lies on the assessee. However, there is no explicit provision authorizing the AO to make disallowance on an arbitrary or ad-hoc basis without a rational or scientific basis. The principle of natural justice and equitable treatment requires that any disallowance should be substantiated and not merely guesswork.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged that the AO was constrained to make an ad-hoc disallowance due to the assessee's failure to furnish supporting documents. While the primary onus lies on the assessee to produce evidence, the Tribunal emphasized that any disallowance, even if necessitated by lack of evidence, must be based on a rational and scientific approach rather than an arbitrary percentage.

Key Evidence and Findings: The AO disallowed 20% of the total claimed expenses amounting to Rs. 16,12,265 on an ad-hoc basis, citing lack of proof of TDS deduction or actual payment. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by directing verification of custom duty payments through GST returns and bank transactions but upheld the 20% disallowance on freight, interest, and wages due to absence of proof.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the AO failed to consider the assessee's financial data from earlier years, which was available on record and could have been used to arrive at a more reasoned disallowance. The Tribunal held that the 20% disallowance was arbitrary and lacked a scientific basis, thereby not sustainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's representative argued that the disallowance was arbitrary and ignored the increase in gross and net profit as per tax audit reports. The Revenue maintained that the disallowance was justified due to non-cooperation. The Tribunal sided with the assessee on the need for a rational basis, while recognizing the Revenue's predicament but emphasizing the necessity of a reasoned approach.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that while disallowance in absence of evidence is permissible, it must be rational and supported by financial data. The blanket 20% disallowance was unjustified.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Custom Duty Expenses

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Custom duty is a statutory payment and its claim as expense must be supported by evidence such as bills of entry and bank transactions. Verification through GST returns is a valid method to confirm payment.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify custom duty payments through GST returns and bank records. The Tribunal accepted this approach and allowed the contention of the assessee regarding custom duty expenses for statistical purposes.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee claimed custom duty of Rs. 13,94,681. The AO initially disallowed part of this on ad-hoc basis. The assessee provided bills of entry and claimed the payments were routed through bank transactions.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found no reason to sustain disallowance of custom duty after verification through GST returns and bank records.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not dispute the genuineness of custom duty payments once verified through statutory returns.

Conclusions: The Tribunal directed deletion of disallowance on custom duty expenses.

Issue 3: Disallowance of Freight Expenses

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Freight expenses are legitimate business expenses if supported by evidence. Consistency in expense proportion relative to turnover across years supports genuineness.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that freight expenses remained almost at the same proportion to sales as in earlier years, indicating no abnormality.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's comparative chart showed freight expenses consistent with earlier years' ratios to turnover.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found no justification for disallowance of freight expenses and set aside the CIT(A)'s confirmation of 20% disallowance on this account.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue relied on lack of documentary evidence; however, the Tribunal prioritized consistency in financial trends.

Conclusions: Disallowance of freight expenses was deleted.

Issue 4: Disallowance of Interest Expenses

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Interest on genuine loans is allowable as expense. Genuineness is established by documentary evidence and consistency with earlier years.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that interest expenses on loans from three parties were similar to earlier years with no prior disallowance. A fresh loan from a fourth party, a family member, was at a comparable interest rate and its genuineness was not doubted.

Key Evidence and Findings: No disallowance of interest expenses was made in earlier years. The interest rate on the new loan was consistent. No evidence was produced to question genuineness.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held no disallowance was warranted for interest expenses on these loans. However, considering non-submission of supporting documents, a nominal ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 20,000 was directed to balance interests.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue emphasized lack of documents; assessee relied on consistency and genuineness.

Conclusions: Substantial disallowance deleted; nominal disallowance imposed.

Issue 5: Disallowance of Wages Expenses

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Wages are allowable business expenses if genuine and supported by evidence. Reasonable increase relative to turnover is acceptable.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted a slight increase in wages relative to sales compared to earlier years but recognized that increase in labour cost cannot be ignored.

Key Evidence and Findings: The comparative chart showed wages increasing slightly but within reasonable limits.

Application of Law to Facts: To resolve the dispute equitably, the Tribunal allowed a nominal ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000 instead of the 20% disallowance upheld by CIT(A).

Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue insisted on disallowance for lack of documents; assessee highlighted consistency and reasonable increase.

Conclusions: Substantial disallowance deleted; nominal disallowance imposed to balance interests.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"Admittedly, there is no provision under the Act for making the disallowance on ad-hoc basis. However, the Revenue has been left with no other option but to make the disallowance on an ad-hoc basis where the assessee fails to furnish the supporting evidence. Undeniably, the primary onus lies upon the assessee to furnish the supporting evidence. But the assessee in the present case has not furnished necessary details in support of the expenses discussed above. Be that as it may be, in our considered view, even if the assessee does not co-operate or does not furnish the necessary details yet any disallowance if warranted, it has to be based on a scientific and rational basis."

"While making the disallowance in the absence of documentary evidence, some guess work is involved, but the same should be made after considering the financial data of the assessee of the earlier and later years."

"In the present case, the Revenue had financial data of the assessee of the earlier years, which in our considered view, should have been taken into consideration, while making the disallowance on ad-hoc basis but the revenue failed to do so. As such, we do not find any basis in adopting the disallowance at the rate of 20% of the expenses as stated above."

"Regarding the 'freight expenses', we note that such expenses are almost in the same proportion to sales as incurred by the assessee in the earlier years in relation to the sales. Therefore, we do not find any reason to uphold the finding of the ld. CIT (A) for the disallowance of freight charges."

"Regarding interest expenses ... the genuineness of the loan has not been doubted. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to make the disallowance of such interest expenses. But considering the fact of non-submission of the supporting documents, and to put an end to the dispute, we find that an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 20000.00 shall render justice to the assessee and the Revenue."

"Regarding the wages ... considering the slight increase in the labour charges in relation to sale and to put an end to the dispute, we find that an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 1 lac shall render justice to the assessee and the Revenue."

Final determinations:

• The 20% ad-hoc disallowance on freight, interest, and wages was arbitrary and not sustainable.
• Disallowance on custom duty was deleted after verification through GST returns and bank transactions.
• Freight expenses disallowance was deleted due to consistency with earlier years.
• Interest expenses disallowance was deleted except for a nominal Rs. 20,000 ad-hoc disallowance considering non-submission of documents.
• Wages disallowance was reduced to a nominal Rs. 1,00,000 ad-hoc disallowance to balance interests.
• The appeal was partly allowed accordingly.

---