2025 (11) TMI 798 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal allowed: subcontractor cash payments allowed as business expense; TDS, PAN, ITRs proved genuineness (Section 194C)

ITAT allowed the appeal and deleted additions disallowing cash payments to subcontractors. The tribunal found the assessee, engaged in large tentage ... Additions made with regard to contract payment in Cash - TDS was deducted while payment in cash to sub-contractors - allowable business expenditure or not? - HELD THAT:- Assessee is in the business of tent work making temporary structures of Huge Pandals, Accommodation, Swiss Cottages etc - As observe that assessee is taking the contract from various parties and sub-contracts the same. Since assessee has to do tentage contracts which involves voluminous transportation and installation of tentage goods in various places. Accordingly, assessee deals with sub- contractors by settling the same in cash. These being unregulated sector most of the transactions are only through cash Assessee has dealt with four sub-contractors of whom the assessee has already submitted PAN details and their respective assessments and also submitted confirmation from these parties. Assessee has deducted TDS on such payments and the same were duly complied with and copies of TDS certificates were also submitted before the authorities. Assessee also submitted the ITR of these parties. Since these parties were not brought before the AO and these transactions were carried by settling the same in cash, the expenses were disallowed. Since these parties are already filing return of income and their incomes were assessed to tax and considering the peculiar nature of the business of the assessee, I observe that assessee has declared Rs.2 crores of gross receipts during the year and the same was accepted by the Revenue and the nature of business involving erection of huge tents and it cannot be denied that assessee might have given some sub- contracts to the parties involving of such sub-contractors in such business cannot be denied and assessee has properly brought on record, the payments and TDS were deducted properly and assessee is regularly doing business in this line of business and such payment of about 4% of the gross receipt cannot be denied as genuine transaction. These expenditure claimed by the assessee are wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, hence these payments were deserved to be allowed and AO has any doubt on cash payments, he could have initiated other proceedings in respect of disallowance the expenditure. Merely because the settlements were made through cash, it cannot itself be held to be non-genuine. Assessee appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether payments to alleged sub-contractors made largely in cash and not verified by production of the payees before the Assessing Officer are deductible as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing unverified sub-contract expenses on the basis of section 40A(3) (payments in excess of prescribed limit in cash) and failure of the payees to appear pursuant to summons under section 131. 3. Whether on the facts and evidence placed on record (PAN, TDS deduction and certificates, ITRs, ledger entries, confirmations and audit) the assessee discharged the onus of proving genuineness and business purpose of the sub-contract payments. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Deductibility of sub-contract payments under section 37(1) Legal framework: Section 37(1) allows business expenditure which is wholly and exclusively for business purpose; the assessee bears the onus of proving genuineness and business nexus of claimed expenses. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on authorities recognizing limits to documentary proof a normal business can maintain and holding that when adequate material (PAN, TDS, confirmations, ITRs, audited books) is produced, AO cannot arbitrarily disallow expenditures; such precedent was followed in the present reasoning. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the nature of the assessee's business (tentage/temporary structures requiring on-site erection/dismantling at distant locations), the volume of business receipts, and the operational need for engaging local sub-contractors. It accepted that substantial freight and related logistic costs were incurred and that sub-contracting in cash is customary in this unregulated sector. The Tribunal gave weight to contemporaneous documentary evidence: ledger entries, TDS deduction and Form 16A/26Q, confirmations, ITRs of the payees and audited books under section 44AB. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an assessee furnishes substantive corroborative evidence of payment and tax compliance (PAN, TDS certificates, payee ITRs, ledger confirmations, audited books) for sub-contract work, such payments can be allowed as business expenditure under section 37(1) notwithstanding cash settlement, subject to overall satisfaction on genuineness. Obiter - general observations about customary practices in unregulated sectors and limits to documentary expectations. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee discharged the onus as to genuineness and business purpose; the sub-contract payments were allowable under section 37(1). The disallowance was set aside. Issue 2: Validity of disallowance under section 40A(3) and effect of non-appearance of payees under summons Legal framework: Section 40A(3) enables disallowance of expenditure where payments in excess of prescribed limit are made to a person in respect of expenses; however, allowance depends on factual substratum that payments were not genuine or were intended to evade statutory safeguards. Summons under section 131 empower AO to examine third parties; failure of third parties to appear may be a relevant, but not necessarily conclusive, factor. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal referenced decisions holding that mere cash payments are not conclusive proof of non-genuineness and that where TDS has been deducted and other corroborative records exist, disallowance under 40A(3) and additions based solely on non-production may not be warranted. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal scrutinized the AO's factual findings: single invoices in March, cash payments below statutory thresholds, non-appearance of payees to summons. It found these factors, in isolation, insufficient to discredit the transactions because (i) TDS was deducted and supported by traceable certificates; (ii) payees filed ITRs reflecting the receipts and PAN/Aadhaar/addresses matched departmental records; (iii) the business context justified cash dealings; and (iv) AO did not pursue further enquires (e.g., effective attempts at service, alternative verification) before making extensive disallowances. The Tribunal held that non-appearance of payees did not automatically render expenditures bogus where other credible evidence existed. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - disallowance under section 40A(3) cannot be mechanically applied where the assessee presents credible documentary evidence (TDS compliance, payee ITRs, confirmations) and where the nature of the business explains cash dealings; AO's failure to pursue reasonable verification undermines the disallowance. Obiter - commentary on administrative steps AO might have taken (further summons/service attempts) before disallowing. Conclusion: The Tribunal held the AO's reliance on section 40A(3) and payees' non-appearance insufficient to sustain the disallowance; the section 40A(3) objection did not justify the addition in light of the evidentiary matrix. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence produced by the assessee and scope of AO's verification powers Legal framework: The evidentiary burden on assessee to prove genuineness is substantive but pragmatic; normal business should not be expected to maintain unrealistically exhaustive proof. AO has powers to verify but must exercise them reasonably and not adopt a mechanistic approach leading to arbitrary disallowance. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied upon authorities holding that when assessee furnishes PAN, TDS proof, ledger entries, payee ITRs and audited accounts, the burden is met and AO cannot simply disallow on account of lack of appearance of creditors; such decisions were treated as guiding and followed. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal evaluated the documentary trail submitted: ledger confirmations, Form 16A/Form 26Q showing TDS on contract payments, payees' ITRs reflecting receipt of the amounts, audited books filed under section 44AB, and aggregate business receipts matching the scale of operations. It reasoned that these materials collectively establish payment, receipt by payees and business nexus. The Tribunal also noted that the AO accepted gross receipts and conducted only limited further verification; where AO had doubts about service of summons (postal remarks 'incomplete address'), the Tribunal observed that departmental records already contained payee addresses and identifiers (PAN/Aadhaar) and AO could have utilized department's powers to secure attendance rather than disallowing expenses summarily. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a composite of corroborative documentary evidence including TDS certificates and payee tax filings can suffice to discharge the onus under section 37(1); AO must make reasonable verification efforts before disallowance. Obiter - expectations regarding practical limits to the kind of evidence typical businesses can furnish. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded the assessee discharged the evidentiary burden; the AO's non-pursuit of further verification and mechanistic disallowance could not be sustained. Consequently, the additions were deleted and the appeal allowed.