2004 (6) TMI 249 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal partially allowed, evidence needed for expenses. Deduction granted under s. 80HHC.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the appellant to furnish evidence for brokerage and commission expenses, leading to a fresh decision by ... Business expenditure, Deductions Issues:1. Opportunity provided by CIT(A) to the appellant.2. Disallowance of brokerage and commission expenses.3. Disallowance of machinery repair and maintenance expenses.4. Disallowance of advertisement and publicity expenses.5. Disallowance of Pooja expenses.6. Deduction under s. 80HHC.Analysis:1. Opportunity provided by CIT(A) to the appellant:The appellant raised a ground regarding the lack of a reasonable opportunity given by the CIT(A). However, during the hearing, the appellant's counsel expressed disinterest in pursuing this ground, leading to its dismissal. The issue was not pressed further, and no relief was sought in this regard.2. Disallowance of brokerage and commission expenses:The appellant contested the disallowance of Rs. 95,806 out of brokerage and commission expenses claimed. The AO disallowed this amount as the bills did not pertain to the relevant assessment year. The appellant argued that the expenses were settled in the year under appeal, but failed to provide supporting evidence. The Tribunal directed the appellant to furnish evidence to justify the claim, especially for expenses related to specific parties, allowing for a fresh decision by the AO.3. Disallowance of machinery repair and maintenance expenses:A disallowance of Rs. 51,374 on account of machinery repair and maintenance expenses was made by the AO. The Tribunal upheld this disallowance as the expenses were not adequately explained, with certain charges not pertaining to the relevant year. The maintenance contract charges were scrutinized, and the disallowance was deemed appropriate without interference.4. Disallowance of advertisement and publicity expenses:Regarding the disallowance of Rs. 1,08,642 for advertisement and publicity expenses, the appellant failed to substantiate the claims adequately. Bills from various parties were questioned for their authenticity, with discrepancies found in the details provided. The disallowance was upheld as the appellant could not establish the genuineness of the expenses or their relevance to the business activities.5. Disallowance of Pooja expenses:A disallowance of Rs. 11,236 on account of Pooja expenses was challenged by the appellant. However, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance as the expenses were not proven to be incurred purely for business purposes, citing a precedent from the Bombay High Court. The lack of business justification led to the rejection of this claim.6. Deduction under s. 80HHC:The AO denied a deduction of Rs. 40,278 under s. 80HHC due to the late filing of the audit report. The Tribunal disagreed with this decision, citing relevant judgments from the jurisdictional High Court. The appellant's claim was allowed, emphasizing that the delay in filing the report did not warrant the disallowance of the deduction under s. 80HHC.In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, addressing various grounds raised by the appellant and providing detailed analyses for each issue presented before the Tribunal.