SRI. GANESH SHIPPING AGENCY,MANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 545/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2017AY 2011-125 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that 'speed money' expenditure incurred in the course of business, not prohibited by law, is allowable. Disallowance cannot be made merely on the premise of excessiveness or cash payment without invoking specific provisions like Section 40A(3) or proving lack of genuineness.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a firm engaged in clearing and forwarding, claimed 'speed money' expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of this expenditure, deeming it non-genuine due to its nature and increase. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 10%.

What were the issues?

Whether 'speed money' expenditure is allowable as a business expense, and if disallowance can be made solely based on the nature or amount of expenditure without specific legal grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1),Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CIRCUIT BENCH AT MANGALORE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, Advocate, Shri K.A.Chandrashekar, JCIT(DR)
Hearing: 31/01/2017Pronounced: 02/05/2017

Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM :

1.

These are appeals filed by the assessee directed against the orders of the CIT(A), Mangalore, dated 20/01/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13.

2.

The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:

3.

The facts relevant to assessment year 2011-12 are stated hereunder: The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of clearing and forwarding agent, steamer agent and bus operator. Return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 30/09/2011 declaring total income of Rs.1,86,30,222/-. After processing the said return of income u/s 143(1), the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and the assessment was completed vide order dated 31/01/2014 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 [‘the Act’ for short] at a total income of Rs.2,03,36,959/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed 20% of the speed money expenditure of Rs.8535685 holding that having regard to increase in expenditure and the & 546/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 5 nature of expenditure, 20% of the expenditure is treated as non- genuine.

4.

On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A), following the Hon’ble ITAT decision in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005-06 dated 14/06/2013 in restricted the disallowance to 10% of the speed money.

5.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is before us in the present appeal.

5.1 Learned AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that the nature of speed money was considered Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Konkan Marine Agencies (313 ITR 308) wherein the Hon’ble High Court opined that this expenditure does not involve any breach of any statute or law and therefore the entire expenditure is allowable. He further submitted that this decision was followed by the Hon’ble co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in dated 30/06/2010. Therefore, according to the Learned AR of the assessee, latter decision of this Tribunal is to be preferred to the decision in the case of the appellant.

5.2 On the other hand, learned DR placed reliance on the order of the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2010-11 in and ITA No.1677/Bang/2013 dated 23/03/2015. & 546/Bang/2016 Page 4 of 5 6. We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The issue of allowability of speed money had come for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Konkan Marine Agencies (313 ITR 308) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that said expenditure was incurred only in the course of business and is neither prohibited by law and is wholly allowable. The relevant para is as under:

“7. We have perused the orders passed by the authorities below and taking into consideration the assessee's business and the prevailing practice in the trade, whereby payments have to be made by the firms such as the assessee in order to ensure that work of handling goods are done within a reasonable time and to handle emergency operations of cargo handling beyond the working hours, such payments are made either through labour or workers' union, cannot be considered to be either prohibited by law and further the assessee cannot be expected to take the receipt from individual workers or make payment by way of cheques. In our opinion, the payment is clearly for business consideration and cannot be considered to be illegal in nature and have been incurred in the ordinary course of business and, therefore, the said amount ought to be allowed as deduction by way of business expenditure.”

Thus, the Hon'ble High Court, after examining the nature of expenditure had come to the conclusion that this expenditure is allowable as business expenditure as it is not prohibited by any provisions of law. Further, we hold that no expenditure can be disallowed merely on the premise that the expenditure is excessive when all other conditions for allowability of expenditure u/s 37(1) are fulfilled. The AO had not invoked the provisions of sections of 40A(3) to disallow the payments, if any, made in cash & 546/Bang/2016 Page 5 of 5 exceeding Rs.20,000/-. Merely because expenditure was incurred in cash, it cannot be presumed that the expenditure is not genuine. No disallowance can be made merely based on surmises and conjectures.

7.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →