No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ / ‘SMC’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE
आदेश / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre,
Delhi, dated 18.05.2022 and pertains to assessment year 2014-15.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 18.05.2022 for the above mentioned Assessment Year vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/2022- 23/1043064561(l) is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The NFAC erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.7,01,884/- being 5% of net project expenses of Rs.1,40,37,687/- resulting in confirmation of the addition made as a consequence to the said disallowance in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification.
ITA No.522/Chny/2022 M/s.Green Leaves Estates & Hotels :: 2 ::
The NFAC erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.1,25,300/- being the expenses incurred as unexplained resulting in confirmation of the addition made as a consequence to the said disallowance in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification.
The NFAC erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.1,77,608/- being the notional charge of interest on partners' drawings at 12% resulting in confirmation of the addition made as a consequence to the said disallowance in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification.
The NFAC erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.2,58,719/- being the presumed excess interest paid to partners over and above 12% specified in the partnership deed resulting in confirmation of the addition made as a consequence to the said disallowance in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification.
The NFAC failed to appreciate that the entire recomputation of taxable total income on various facets was wrong, incorrect, erroneous, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law.
The NFAC failed to appreciate that the evidences available on record were not considered in proper perspective and ought to have appreciated that non consideration of relevant facts would vitiate the entire recomputation of taxable total income.
The NFAC failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is nullity in law.
The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm
engaged in the business of civil construction, e-filed its return of income for
the AY 2014-15 on 30.11.2014 admitting total income of Rs.5,61,400/-.
The assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) of the Act, on 21.12.2016
and determined total income of Rs.18,99,910/- after making addition
towards disallowance of 5% of project expenses amounting to
Rs.7,01,884/-, disallowance of unexplained expenditure towards audit fees
amounting to Rs.1,25,300/-, addition towards interest on excess drawings
by partners amounting to Rs.1,77,608/- and disallowance of excess interest
paid to partners over and above 12% as specified in the Partnership Deed
ITA No.522/Chny/2022 M/s.Green Leaves Estates & Hotels :: 3 ::
amounting to Rs.2,58,719/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal
before the First Appellate Authority, but could not succeeded. The Ld.CIT(A)
for the reasons stated in their appellate order, sustained the additions made
by the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in
appeal before me.
The first issue that came up for my consideration from Ground No.2
of the assessee’s appeal is adhoc disallowance of 5% of net project
expenses amounting to Rs.7,01,884/-. The assessee has debited project
expenses of Rs.4,47,98,390/- which includes the expenses of work in
progress, labour contract and purchase of land, etc. Out of the above, an
amount of Rs.1,40,37,687/- represents purchase of materials. The
assessee could not file necessary supporting evidences for purchase of
materials. Therefore, the AO made 5% adhoc disallowance and made
addition of Rs.7,01,884/-
I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on
record and gone through orders of the authorities below. It was the
explanation of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that total expenditure
incurred towards materials purchased is paid through proper banking
channel and also the assessee has filed necessary supporting evidences.
However, the AO has made adhoc disallowance without any basis.
Therefore, the issue may be set aside to the file of the AO to give one more
opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. I find that although the
ITA No.522/Chny/2022 M/s.Green Leaves Estates & Hotels :: 4 ::
assessee claims to have incurred expenses for materials purchased through
proper banking channel, but on perusal of the assessment order, no such
details are forthcoming. The assessee explained that total expenditure
incurred towards materials purchased is supported by evidences, whereas,
the AO claims that the assessee could not file any bills and vouchers. Facts
are contradictory. Therefore, I set aside the issue to the file of the AO and
direct the AO to re-examine the claim of the assessee in light of arguments
of the assessee that expenditure incurred through bank and also the same
is supported by necessary evidences.
The next issue that came up for my consideration from Ground No.3
of the assessee’s appeal is disallowance of unexplained expenditure of
Rs.1,25,300/-. The assessee has debited a sum of Rs.1,84,570/- towards
audit fees. However, assessee could explain with necessary evidences to
the extent of Rs.59,270/-, and thus, the balance amount of Rs.1,25,300/-
was unexplained.
I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on
record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Although, the
assessee explained before the AO that the balance amount of Rs.1,25,300/-
is not audit fees, but a wrong entry has been passed to some other
expenses and debited to audit fees, but the explanation of the assessee is
unsubstantiated. No evidence has been placed before me to justify its
arguments. In my considered view, there is no error in the reasons given
ITA No.522/Chny/2022 M/s.Green Leaves Estates & Hotels :: 5 ::
by the AO to make addition towards unexplained expenditure towards audit
fees and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) and hence, I inclined to uphold the
findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the ground taken by the assessee.
The next issue that came up for my consideration from Ground Nos.4
& 5 of the assessee’s appeal is addition towards interest on excess drawings
by partners and disallowance of excess interest paid over and above 12%
as specified in the Partnership Deed towards partners’ capital account. The
AO has made addition towards 12% interest on partners drawing account
on the ground that when the assessee has paid interest on partners’ capital
account, the assessee ought to have recovered interest from partners
current account when such current account is overdrawn and thus, imputed
12% interest on partners current account. Similarly, the AO has disallowed
excess interest paid towards partners’ capital account over and above the
rate specified in the Partnership Deed in terms of Sec.40b(iv) of the Act.
I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on
record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The only
argument of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee is that while computing
interest on capital account and interest on current account, the AO should
have aggregated both capital and current accounts and in case, any over
drawings by the partner, then, interest can be computed. Similarly, while
computing interest on capital account in excess of 12%, the AO should
aggregate the balance appearing in the current account. I find that the
ITA No.522/Chny/2022 M/s.Green Leaves Estates & Hotels :: 6 ::
arguments of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee appears to be correct. Because, while computing interest on partners’ capital and current accounts, the AO should aggregate the capital and current account to ascertain any overdrawing’s by partner. Therefore, in my considered view, the issue needs to go back to the file of the AO for further verification and thus, I set aside the issue to the AO and direct the AO to reconsider the issue in light of my discussions given herein above.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 14th day of October, 2022, in Chennai.
Sd/- (जी. मंजूनाथा) (G. MANJUNATHA) लेखा सद(/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे%ई/Chennai, िदनांक/Dated: 14th October, 2022. TLN आदेश की �ितिलिप अ)ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 4. आयकर आयु*/CIT 2. ��थ�/Respondent 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 3. आयकर आयु* (अपील)/CIT(A) 6. गाड� फाईल/GF