ITAT deletes ad hoc 10% disallowance of commission and land development expenses, citing Section 37(1) and proper documentation

The ITAT Hyderabad allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the 10% ad hoc disallowance of commission and land development expenses. It held that, since the AO had not rejected the regularly maintained books of account and the assessee had produced complete particulars of commission payments (including names, addresses, PAN, banking channels, and TDS details), an arbitrary percentage disallowance was impermissible. Similarly, the 10% disallowance of land development expenses was set aside as the AO neither identified specific unverifiable items nor demonstrated incorrectness of the expenditure. The Tribunal ruled that, absent concrete defects, business expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business cannot be disallowed on an ad hoc basis.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether ad hoc disallowance of 10% of commission expenses was justified in the absence of rejection of books of account or specific defects in the supporting evidence.

1.2 Whether ad hoc disallowance of 10% of land development expenses was justified where substantial payments were made to statutory and regulatory authorities through banking channels and books of account were not rejected.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

2.1 Ad hoc disallowance of commission expenses

2.1.1 Interpretation and reasoning

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a real estate developer, had claimed commission expenses and furnished details including names of agents, addresses, PAN, TDS deduction under section 194H, and proof of payments through banking channels. The auditor under section 44AB had not reported any discrepancies in the books, and the Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of account nor demonstrated any specific instance of non-genuineness or incorrectness of the commission expenditure. The disallowance was made solely on the ground that corresponding sale deeds/sale invoices and the basis of commission payment were not furnished to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that, in the absence of rejection of books of account and without pointing out any specific discrepancy or defect in the commission expenditure, resorting to an arbitrary or ad hoc disallowance of 10% was not permissible. Where the assessee has substantiated payments with relevant particulars and banking and TDS evidence, a mere general doubt or perception of "unreasonableness" of quantum is insufficient to sustain an ad hoc disallowance.

2.1.2 Conclusions

The Tribunal concluded that the 10% ad hoc disallowance of commission expenses was unjustified and directed deletion of the addition made on this account.

2.2 Ad hoc disallowance of land development expenses

2.2.1 Interpretation and reasoning

The assessee had claimed substantial land development expenses, comprising (i) major payments to statutory and regulatory authorities (including Yadadri Temple Development Authority, local municipality and State Real Estate Regulatory Authority) towards land conversion and development charges, and (ii) purchase of materials and service charges like carpentry, electrical work, JCB and tractor hire, etc. The assessee produced ledger accounts, bank statements, demand notes and orders from authorities in support of significant payments, including specific amounts paid to Yadadri Temple Development Authority, the municipality and the regulatory authority, all through banking channels. For some items, especially purchases from unorganised sectors (e.g. bricks, sand), full supporting bills and vouchers could not be produced.

The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer did not reject the assessee's books of account, did not identify any particular item of expenditure as bogus or inflated, and did not make any specific finding as to incorrectness of entries. The disallowance was made by applying an ad hoc rate of 10% to the total land development expenses on the ground of general non-satisfaction and lack of complete vouchers. The Tribunal held that, when the majority of expenses are supported by documentary evidence and payments to government and regulatory bodies are through identifiable banking channels, and when books of account are neither rejected nor any concrete defects pointed out, a flat ad hoc disallowance merely for non-production of some vouchers for certain items is not justified. Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business cannot be disallowed in an arbitrary percentage without specific identification of unsupported or unverifiable items.

2.2.2 Conclusions

The Tribunal held that the 10% ad hoc disallowance of land development expenses, without identifying particular unsupported or non-genuine items and without rejection of books of account, was unsustainable, and directed deletion of the addition.

2.3 Overall result

On both issues, the Tribunal set aside the order of the appellate authority and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made on account of ad hoc disallowance of commission and land development expenses.

---