2024 (11) TMI 563 - AT - Income Tax

Tax authority cannot make arbitrary expense disallowances under sections 57(iii) and 37(1) without specific justification

ITO, Ward 28 (5), Delhi Versus Satish Sawhney

The ITAT Delhi upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances under sections 57(iii) and 37(1). For section 57(iii), the tribunal followed the Supreme ... Disallowance u/s 57(iii) - assessee is claiming expenditure not relating to the earning of such income - assessee’s financial advisor has charged a fee more than 75% fee/commission - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- Since the issue before us is mutatis mutandis squarely covered by the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978 (10) TMI 133 - SUPREME COURT], in our view, the AO has not disputed the fact that the assessee has legal dispute pending which is closely related to earning of income during the year. Ld CIT(A) has passed a speaking order addressing the issues involved in this case. we respectfully following the aforesaid findings, uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue by dismissing the ground 1 raised by the Revenue. Disallowance u/s 37(1) - assessee has income from business and profession incurred by him on bills/vouchers - HELD THAT:- On careful consideration and after hearing both the parties we find that the AO has made an adhoc disallowances on this expenditure without pointing out any element of such expenditure. It is noted that only requiring u/s 37 of the Act is that the expenses, which are not capital or personal in nature, can be claimed for the purpose of the business or profession. There is no need to demonstrate that a certain expense relates to a particular income in order to claim such expense. However from the discussion made above, it is clear that the appellant, in more than one we, has substantiated necessity and genuineness of expenses claimed.. The CIT(A) in his order has rightly deleted the adhoc disallowance. Ground no.2 of the appeal of the revenue is rejected. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of expenditure under Section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Disallowance of expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Expenditure under Section 57(iii):The core issue under Section 57(iii) pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 2,30,36,645/- claimed by the assessee as expenditure incurred for earning income from other sources. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this expenditure, arguing that it was excessive, constituting more than 75% of the income earned, and lacked direct correlation to the income from other sources. The AO contended that such high fees were unprecedented and unjustifiable, suggesting that the expenditure was not incurred for earning the income but merely for securing the return of income already earned.The assessee argued that the expenditure was necessary due to a legal dispute involving Merrill Lynch, which required hiring professionals to handle complex foreign transactions and recover funds. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajendra Prasad Moody, which held that genuineness of expenditure, once not disputed, cannot be disallowed under Section 57(iii). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the AO did not dispute the legal dispute's existence, which was closely related to income earning. The Tribunal reiterated that expenditure is deductible irrespective of income receipt, aligning with the principle that proper expenditure must be debited regardless of income presence.2. Disallowance of Expenditure under Section 37(1):The second issue concerns the disallowance of Rs. 2,10,000/- under Section 37(1), which the AO estimated as personal in nature. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, noting that the AO's estimation lacked specific evidence and was based on conjecture. The CIT(A) emphasized that expenses not capital or personal in nature are allowable for business or profession purposes without needing to relate them to specific income.The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), observing that the AO's disallowance was adhoc without pinpointing any specific expenditure element. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, highlighting that the assessee substantiated the necessity and genuineness of the claimed expenses, and that conjecture cannot form the basis of disallowance.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete both disallowances. The judgment underscores the principles of allowing genuine expenditures under Sections 57(iii) and 37(1) when substantiated, and the inadmissibility of disallowances based on conjecture or lack of direct correlation to income.