Non-compete fees to retiring partner allowed as revenue expenditure but unexplained credits under Section 68 upheld due to suspicious creditor patterns

ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal regarding non-compete fees paid to a retiring partner, treating it as revenue expenditure based on its own precedent for assessment year 2018-19 where similar payment was allowed. However, the Tribunal upheld additions under Section 68 for unexplained credits, finding that creditors' bank statements showed suspicious patterns - modest balances, sudden credits, immediate withdrawals to the assessee, then reverting to minimal balances. The AO and CIT(Appeals) provided detailed findings on each creditor's financial status, and the assessee failed to establish creditworthiness and genuineness of loan transactions despite claiming compliance with Section 68 requirements.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

• Whether the non-compete fees amounting to Rs. 38,00,000/- paid to a retiring partner constitute capital expenditure or revenue expenditure deductible as business expense.
• Whether the addition of Rs. 1,77,24,909/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of unsecured loans from seven parties is justified on the ground of non-establishment of creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions.
• Whether delay in filing appeal by two days should be condoned.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Nature and Allowability of Non-Compete Fees as Deductible Expenditure

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The classification of non-compete fees as capital or revenue expenditure depends on the nature of the payment and its relation to the profit-earning apparatus of the assessee. The Supreme Court ruling in Shiv Raj Gupta establishes that non-compete fees paid to a person for their knowledge, skill, expertise, and specialization in the business of the assessee can be revenue expenditure. The Gujarat High Court decision in Smartchem Technologies Limited also supports expenditure incurred primarily and essentially related to the operation or work of the firm as revenue expenditure. The decision in PCIT vs. Ferromatic Milacron India was distinguished based on facts.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the non-compete agreement was entered with the retiring partner to restrain him from initiating competing real estate projects within a 2 km radius for two years. Despite the Assessing Officer's view that the restriction zone was inadequate and the payment was a device to divert income, the Tribunal emphasized that the payment related to the partner's expertise and reputation, which could impact the assessee's business profits. The Tribunal observed that the payment was made over two years and that the partner had paid tax on the amount, indicating genuineness. The Tribunal held that the compensation for refraining from competition was revenue expenditure as it related to the profit-earning apparatus of the LLP.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee firm paid Rs. 76,00,000/- in total as non-compete fees, split equally over AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. The firm was incorporated in 2014 but had no income in earlier years. The payment was based on partners' judgment of the retiring partner's business impact. The Assessing Officer found no valuation or supporting documentation but did not dispute the tax paid by the retiring partner. The Tribunal relied on the earlier decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2018-19, where the non-compete fee was held to be revenue expenditure.

Application of Law to Facts: Following the precedent and the facts that the non-compete fee was paid for restraining competition and was related to the business operations, the Tribunal held that it constituted revenue expenditure deductible under the Act. The Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowance was set aside.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Assessing Officer argued the restriction was insignificant and the payment was a device to divert income; the assessee argued the payment was a genuine business decision based on experience and expertise. The Tribunal found the assessee's arguments persuasive, especially in light of the earlier Tribunal ruling for AY 2018-19.

Conclusion: The non-compete fees paid to the retiring partner are allowable as revenue expenditure. The disallowance by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) is overturned and the ground is allowed.

Issue 2: Addition of Unexplained Credit under Section 68 on Loans from Seven Parties

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 requires the assessee to prove (i) identity of the creditor, (ii) creditworthiness of the creditor, and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Judicial precedents clarify that while the assessee must establish these elements, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer if the initial proof is satisfactory. The Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. emphasized that mere proof of identity is insufficient without establishing creditworthiness and genuineness. The Gujarat High Court rulings in Murlidhar Lahorimal v. CIT and CIT v. Pragati Co. Op. Bank Ltd. were cited by the assessee regarding the burden of proof and the limits of AO's inquiry.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Assessing Officer issued notices and summons to creditors but none appeared. The AO examined income tax returns and bank statements of the lenders and found their income and bank balances insufficient to justify the loans. A pattern was observed where large credit entries appeared in the lenders' bank accounts, followed by immediate transfer to the assessee and return to nominal balances, indicating possible circular transactions. The CIT(A) upheld these findings after detailed consideration of each creditor's financial position. The Tribunal found no infirmity in these findings and held that the assessee failed to establish creditworthiness and genuineness.

Key Evidence and Findings:

• Creditors had meagre declared incomes and minimal bank balances.
• Loans were transferred shortly after receipt of large credits in their accounts.
• None of the creditors complied with summons or provided explanations.
• Some creditors did not file returns or lacked PAN.
• The assessee provided confirmations, PANs, ITRs, and bank statements but failed to prove capacity to lend.
• The LLP was operational during the relevant year and claimed various expenses, negating the argument of no business activity.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that creditworthiness must be established beyond mere identity and transaction confirmation. The suspicious pattern of bank transactions and lack of credible evidence from creditors justified the addition under section 68. The assessee's reliance on judicial precedents was noted but distinguished on facts, emphasizing that each case depends on its own facts.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that creditworthiness can be shown by access to family wealth or other sources, and that the AO cannot demand source of funds from lenders. It was also argued that the LLP had no prior income before the project and that the AO accepted the project revenue. The Tribunal rejected these contentions, finding the evidence insufficient and noting the pattern of transactions suggested the loans were not genuine.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 1,77,24,909/- under section 68 on account of unexplained loans is upheld. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving creditworthiness and genuineness of the loans. Ground two is dismissed.

Issue 3: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal

The appeal was filed two days beyond the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal condoned the delay considering the smallness of the delay and absence of prejudice to the other party.

Final Outcome: The appeal is allowed on the issue of non-compete fees being revenue expenditure. The appeal is dismissed on the issue of addition under section 68. Overall, the appeal is partly allowed.

---