What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient verification of the expenses claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The assessee's appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16. The notice of hearing sent to the assessee was returned undelivered, and the assessee did not appear. The Assessing Officer had disallowed various expenses claimed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of various business expenses by the Assessing Officer was justified without proper verification, and whether the assessee was provided with a reasonable opportunity to establish the genuineness of the expenses.

Mr. Ebrahimkhan Zainulabudeen vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT

Hearing: 02.12.2019Pronounced: 02.01.2020

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 9, Chennai, dated 30.11.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2015-16.

The notice of hearing was issued by this Tribunal by RPAD.

The postal authorities returned the notice of hearing with the endorsement “left”. This Tribunal has no machinery to find out the correct address of the assessee and serve the notice. It is for the assessee to intimate the correct address by filing revised Form 36 whenever there is a change of address. There may be various reasons for the assessee for not furnishing the change of address to the Registry. One of the reasons, presumably, the assessee may not be interested in prosecuting the appeal any more. However, this Tribunal is expected to dispose the appeal on merit. Therefore, we heard Ld. DR and proceeded to dispose the appeal on merit.

Shri A. Sundararajan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee has not cooperated with the Assessing Officer and he has not appeared before the CIT (Appeals). Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed ₹54,77,075/- which was claimed as bank charges, electricity, cellphone charges, rent, printing and stationery, etc. Since the assessee has not appeared before the CIT (Appeals) by furnishing necessary material, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT (Appeals) has rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

Having heard the Ld. DR, we perused the material available on record, including the impugned orders of both the authorities below. The Assessing Officer disallowed the following expenses claimed by the assessee:-

₹ 7,125 1. Bank Charges ₹ 36,250 2. Electricity ₹ 19,658 3. Cellphone charges ₹ 72,025 4. Conveyance ₹ 21,73,893 5. Commission paid ₹ 9,80,000 6. Loading & Unloading charges for the FY 2014-15 ₹ 9,124 7. Printing & Stationery ₹ 1,80,000 8. Rent paid ₹ 5,40,000 9. Godown Rent ₹ 15,000 10. Salary ₹ 2,80,000 11. Staff Welfare ₹ 9,20,000 12. Store Rent ₹ 2,44,000 13. Sundry expenses ₹54,77,075/- Total expenses disallowed

Bank charges, electricity and rent are in the nature of business expenses. Other expenses like printing and stationery, salary, commission and conveyance are also in the nature of business expenses. However, it is for the assessee to establish the genuineness of the payment. The Assessing Officer can call for details from the banks and other statutory authorities, including the landlord, for payment of charges of electricity, etc. Since such an exercise was not done, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined. Hence, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

MR. EBRAHIMKHAN ZAINULABUDEEN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 8(1), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments