2025 (2) TMI 1211 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance being the freight expenses - expenditure on freight and cartage is also thus shown only to inflate expenses without there being actual business - HELD THAT - We find that the learned Tax Authorities Below have not examined any of the financials and other evidences and merely on the basis of the fact that the assessee belongs to SRS Group which was under investigation drawn adverse inferences. As in view that the financials of an assessee and the duly audited accounts based on bills and vouchers verified in the audit and expenditure being of the nature of freight cannot be doubted without finding the revenue from business of building construction material supply itself to be bogus. If it was a case of inflation of expenses that also required due inquiry and mere suspicion for being a part of group upon which the search was conducted is not sufficient to make the disallowance. It is settled proposition of law that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof. Even in quasi judicial proceedings the gap between may be true and must be true should be covered by the Tax authorities to discredit an expenditure on standalone i.e basis without examining the nature of business and financials as same has not been done we are inclined to sustain the grounds. The appeal is allowed and the impugned addition is deleted.

Summary

1. ISSUES:

1.1 Whether the disallowance of freight expenses claimed by the assessee is justified in the absence of production of bills and vouchers.

1.2 Whether the financial cost claimed by the assessee can be disallowed for lack of supporting documentation and absence of actual business activities.

1.3 Whether adverse inference can be drawn solely on the basis of the assessee's association with a group under investigation without examining the financials and nature of business.

1.4 Whether suspicion alone, without proof, is sufficient to disallow claimed business expenses in quasi-judicial proceedings.

2. RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

2.1 The disallowance of freight expenses amounting to Rs. 65,60,817/- was initially upheld by the tax authorities on the ground that the assessee failed to produce bills and vouchers and the expenses were found to be "bogus" and inflated to show losses, supported by lack of storage facilities and non-arm's length transactions.

2.2 The financial cost of Rs. 1,48,27,836/- was disallowed due to failure to produce requisite bills and vouchers, and absence of actual business activities, invoking the explanation to section 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961.

2.3 The appellate tribunal reversed the disallowance of freight expenses, holding that "financials of an assessee and the duly audited accounts based on bills and vouchers verified in the audit and expenditure being of the nature of freight cannot be doubted without finding the revenue from business ... to be bogus," and that "suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof."

2.4 The tribunal held that mere association with a group under investigation and drawing adverse inferences without examining the nature of business and financials is insufficient to disallow expenses.

3. RATIONALE:

3.1 The legal framework applied includes section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows deduction of business expenses if they are "wholly and exclusively" for business purposes, and section 271(1)(c) regarding penalty for failure to disclose income.

3.2 The tribunal emphasized the settled legal principle that "suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof," requiring that disallowance of expenses must be based on substantive evidence rather than mere suspicion or association with a group under investigation.

3.3 The tribunal noted that the assessee's accounts were audited and based on bills and vouchers, and that the financials showed significant business activity consistent with the claimed expenses, thereby rejecting the tax authorities' adverse inference drawn without examination of financial evidence.

3.4 No dissent or doctrinal shift was recorded; the decision reaffirmed the requirement of evidentiary support before disallowing business expenses in tax proceedings.