Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, M/s Maity Enterprise, a commission agent, filed its return for AY 2009-10. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 and disallowed total business expenses, including bank charges, salary, and miscellaneous expenses, citing lack of proper evidence. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained 50% of the disallowance.
Held
The Tribunal noted that all payments for business expenses were made through banking channels and proper explanations and supporting documents were provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had disallowed the remaining 50% without providing any valid reason. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the balance 50% of the claimed expenses.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance of business expenses, where payments were made through banking channels and duly explained, was justified when the appellate authority failed to provide valid reasons for sustaining a partial disallowance.
Sections Cited
148, 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
आदेश / O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru, dated 29.11.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2009-2010, on the following grounds :- (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ADDL/JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru (NFAC) erred in upholding the disallowance of business expenses to the extent of Rs. 7,41,324/-, which is 50% of total business expenses claimed of Rs. 14,82,647/- on an ad hoc basis by holding that the Appellant has failed to prove the genuineness of the expenses, whereas the Appellant has incurred the entire expenses exclusively for the purpose of proprietary business carried under the trade name M/s. Maity Enterprises, and there is no element of personal expenditure. And in support of the above contention, the Appellant has adduced the documents and records with explanation during the appellate proceeding, which are not appreciated by the ADDL/JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru (NFAC), and allowed only to the extent of 50%. Thus, the remaining 50% disallowance must be deleted by reversing the findings of the ADDL/JCIT(A)-3. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Learned CIT (Appeals) [NFAC] erred in affirming the undue action done by the authority below during the course of appellate proceeding as the Ld. A.O. has made the disallowance of expenditure in full but nowhere mentioned that said expenditure were bogus in his impugned order.
1. 2 ITANo.205/KOL/2025 (3) For that on the facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment orders of authority below and Ld. CIT(Appeals) of NFAC is bad both on the points of law as well as on the points of facts as such void under the law. The appellant relied on a number of case laws, which he would refer to, as and when necessary during the course of hearing of this appeal. (4) For that, your petitioner prays before your honour to cancel the disputed amount of demanded Income Tax and Interest at the appellate stage by deleting the impugned disallowance on the basis of records and submission of appellant or Pass such other or further order or orders as to Your honour would deem fit and proper. (5) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce or amend any ground or grounds on or before the date of hearing of the appeal.
Facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in business as a commission agent primarily acting on behalf of betel leaves farmers being name and style M/s Maity Enterprise, and filed his return of income on 27.04.2009 declaring total income at Rs.1,90,295/-. The A.O. issued a notice u/s.148 of the Act, although the Assessing Officer in making the assessment u/s.143(1) of the Act. In response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 29.03.2016, the assessee filed the return and declaring gross commission 1% being Rs. 16,37,306/- earned on total transaction through bank accounts of Rs. 16,37,30,583/- and claimed business expenses at Rs.14,82,647/-, therefore, the net profit of Proprietary business Rs.1,54,659/-. The A.O. disallowed total business expenses being cash entries for want of proper evidence. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance upto 50% against the total disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on the basis that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the expenses claimed.
3 ITANo.205/KOL/2025 3. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal with the grounds as mentioned hereinabove.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed an amount of Rs.2,19,015/- towards bank charges expenditure and he further submitted that all the payments were made through bank and statements was also filed before the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld.CIT(A) but both the authorities have not considered the same. Similarly, with regard to the salary paid to the employees amounting to Rs.7,50,000/-, the assessee has furnished the salary sheet showing the salary paid to the employees before the ld.AO as well as ld. CIT(A) but they have not considered the same. With regard to other miscellaneous expenditure of Rs.5,21,030/- which are relating to electricity & fuel expenses, general expenses, office expenses, printing & stationery expenses, puja expenses, telephone expenses, travelling expenses and conveyance expenses etc., the assessee has also furnished all the details before the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) but both the authorities have simply mentioned that there is not proof for the said expenses. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) considered only 50% of the expenses without mentioning anything and all the payments were made through banking channel, therefore, he pleaded to allow the business expenses of the assessee.
On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee failed to furnish the details of expenses claimed by him, even though the ld. CIT(A) has considered 50% of the business expenses as claimed by the assessee. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are liable to be dismissed.
4 ITANo.205/KOL/2025 6. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that all the payments were made through banking channels. So far as the miscellaneous expenditures are concerned, the ledger copy placed in the paper book clearly shows that electricity & fuel expenses, general expenses, office expenses, printing & stationery expenses, puja expenses, telephone expenses, travelling expenses and conveyance expenses etc., are required for day-to-day business expenses. The other amount is pertaining to salary. The assessee has clearly mentioned in the salary sheet that salary paid to the employees for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- and also an amount of Rs.2,19,015/- for banking charges. All these amounts are paid through banking channels, however, the ld.CIT(A) examined these expenses and allowed only 50% of the expenses but he has not given any valid reason in disallowance of remaining 50%. Since all the payments made by the assessee are through proper banking channels, therefore, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has properly explained the business expenditure. Accordingly, I set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to consider the balance 50% of the expenses claimed by the assessee.