2025 (8) TMI 1690 - AT - Income Tax

Tax appeal: Rent disallowance deleted for consistency; professional charges and related-party royalty remitted to AO for verification

DCIT, Central Circle 15, New Delhi Versus GDG Educational Trust

ITAT DELHI - AT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the rent disallowance, finding rent payments previously accepted as revenue expenditure and applying the ... Assessment of trust - Disallowance towards the rent paid by the assessee - Assessee was doing charitable activity thus payment of rent to this magnitude was doubted - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) observed that the rent was paid in preceding assessment years, where the same was accepted as revenue expenditure by the Revenue in the orders passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, copies of the said orders are placed before us. It is also seen that the rent agreement which was doubted by the AO in the present year was the same agreement based on which rent was paid and claimed in preceding years. This being so, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) who had rightly deleted the same by following the principle of consistency and the judgement of Excel Industries Ltd. [2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] Disallowance of professional charges - Revenue argued that these expenses were incurred by the assessee which are in the nature of non-charitable - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that assessee failed to file any details with respect to these expenses and the reason stated was due to winter vacations staff was not available. Before ld. CIT(A) assessee had filed the bills and other details like TDS etc. made on such payments and the nature of services for which the payments were made. As the same were not produced before the AO nor was any opportunity provided by ld. CIT(A) to the AO for his comments before reaching to the conclusion about the genuineness of these expenses. In view of these facts and in the interest of justice, we set aside the matter to the file of AO for examination Addition on account of royalty charges paid to sister concern - From the perusal of the order of AO, it is seen that these details were not field before the AO with whom only invoices were submitted based on which AO concluded that the Royalty was paid to the company however, the title was with some other person. No doubts were raised before Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of reasonableness of payment of royalty. In view of these facts and in our considered opinion, this issue needs re-consideration on the part of the AO who was deprived of making comments on the agreements filed by the assessee before Ld.CIT(A). We set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) on this issue and remand the issue to the file of the AO for making necessary verification - Ground raised by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the assessing officer was justified in disallowing rent expenses where (a) rent deed was unregistered, (b) payments were made to a related concern, and (c) identical rent claims had been accepted in earlier assessment years. 2. Whether professional charges claimed by the assessee are deductible where supporting bills and vouchers were not produced before the assessing officer but were produced before the appellate authority. 3. Whether royalty/service charges paid to a sister concern are allowable where (a) invoices described 'service charges' but payments were claimed as royalty, (b) trademark/title appears to be owned by an individual, and (c) licensing agreements and MOUs were produced only before the appellate authority and not before the assessing officer. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Deductibility of Rent Payments to Related Concern Legal framework: Deductibility governed by the general principles of business expenditure being wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business/profession and evidenced by relevant documents; statutory registration of rent deeds is not a universal precondition for allowing rent as revenue expenditure. Relevant tax-assessment provisions permit AO to disallow expenditure where genuineness, purpose or reasonableness are doubtful. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relies on higher-court authority articulating the Doctrine of Consistency - that a 'fundamental aspect' accepted in earlier assessment years should not be reopened in subsequent years absent change in facts or material. The Tribunal applied that authority to prevent re-litigation of identical factual findings across years. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found (a) written rent agreement (albeit unregistered) exists and registration is not legally mandatory for allowance; (b) payments were made through banking channels with TDS deduction; (c) payee recognized rental income; and (d) identical rent payments had been accepted by the Revenue in preceding assessment years under similar facts. The assessing officer's disallowance focused on the unregistered status of the rent deed and the assessee's non-charitable status, but did not dispute reasonableness or banking trail. Given absence of change in facts and presence of documentary and payment trail, the Tribunal applied the Doctrine of Consistency to uphold the appellate authority's deletion of the addition. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where identical factual matrix exists across assessment years and earlier years' treatment accepted by revenue, subsequent reassessment/disallowance of the same expenditure is not appropriate unless new material or change in facts is demonstrated. Obiter - observations on charitable status versus business character were noted but not treated as decisive given the assessee's filing as AOP and prior acceptance. Conclusion: The disallowance of rent was deleted; the revenue's ground on rent is dismissed for lack of fresh material and in view of consistency and documentary/payment evidence. Issue 2 - Allowability of Professional Charges where Documents Were Not Before AO but Were Furnished Before Appellate Authority Legal framework: Deductibility requires proof of genuineness and nature of services; assessing officer must be afforded opportunity to examine supporting material. Appellate authorities may admit additional evidence but fairness may require remand where AO did not have chance to consider new documents. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal follows principles of natural justice and fair adjudication that permit remand when additional evidence admitted at appellate stage was not available to AO, especially where AO made disallowance on record of non-production. Interpretation and reasoning: The appellate authority admitted bills, vouchers and TDS details not produced before the AO. The assessment order explicitly records non-filing of details (staff unavailable). Since the AO did not have these particulars and was not given an opportunity to verify or comment on their genuineness, the Tribunal considered it appropriate in the interest of justice to remit the issue to the AO for fresh examination. The assessee is directed to produce all relevant details in remand proceedings. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where supporting documents relevant to genuineness of claimed expenditures are produced for the first time before appellate authority, the proper course (absent exceptional circumstances) is to remit to AO for verification rather than allow or restore disallowance solely on appellate-stage materials. Obiter - none significant beyond procedural fairness observations. Conclusion: Matter remanded to the assessing officer for verification and decision in accordance with law; revenue's challenge is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Issue 3 - Allowability of Royalty/Service Charges Paid to Sister Concern and Reasonableness of Payment Legal framework: Payments characterized as royalty require substantiation via agreement/licence showing entitlement to the mark/title and linkage between payment and license right; AO may examine ownership/entitlement and reasonableness of amount paid. Genuineness and proper characterization (royalty vs. service charges) are material for allowance. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied the same remedial principle as Issue 2 regarding admissible documents produced only before appellate authority: where AO did not have an opportunity to examine agreements and MOUs relied upon to establish licensing rights, the matter should be remitted for verification and reasonableness inquiry. Interpretation and reasoning: The AO disallowed the payment based on invoices describing 'service charges' and on apparent mismatch between payee company and an individual claimed to own the trade mark. The appellate authority was furnished with (a) an agreement between the alleged trademark owner and the corporate payee granting licensing rights, and (b) an MOU between assessee and the corporate payee for brand usage. The AO had not seen or commented on these documents. The Tribunal noted absence of AO's opportunity to verify the licensing chain, the authenticity of agreements, and the commercial reasonableness of the sum paid (including comparison with established licensors charging nominal amounts). In fairness, the Tribunal remanded the issue for AO verification and determination of reasonableness. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where documentary foundation (licence/agreement/MOU) for a claimed royalty is placed on record only at appellate stage, the issue of genuineness and reasonableness should ordinarily be remitted to the AO for verification. Obiter - comparative reasonableness observations (e.g., contrast with nominal fees charged by international licensors) are persuasive but not determinative absent AO's enquiry. Conclusion: The appellate deletion is set aside and the matter remitted to the assessing officer to verify the agreements, ownership/entitlement to the trade mark, and the reasonableness of the payments; revenue's ground is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Cross-References and Final Disposition 1. Issues 2 and 3 are treated consistently: where material relevant to genuineness/characterisation of expenditure is first placed before appellate forum, procedural fairness ordinarily mandates remand to the assessing officer for verification and fresh decision. 2. Issue 1 is distinguished from Issues 2-3 on facts: identical treatment in prior years, presence of payment trail, TDS and payee reporting of income gave rise to application of the Doctrine of Consistency and deletion of the disallowance without remand. 3. Result: Revenue's appeal is partly allowed - rent disallowance dismissed; professional charges and royalty issues remanded to the assessing officer for verification and decision in accordance with law.