2025 (5) TMI 960 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of 10AA deduction - treating export freight charges foreign travelling expenses of unit-1 as those of unit-2 - HELD THAT - We notice that the assessee has submitted the details of the export done by each Unit linking the Export Freight Charges. We further notice that Unit I Unit II are catering to customers in different countries i.e. US and Europe and by maintaining separate set of books these expenses are directly booked in the respective Units. Though the AO has alleged that expenses are diverted to Unit I the AO did not consider the submissions of the assessee with regard to why the profits of Unit I is less. We also notice that the AO did not examine the breakup of Unit wise expenses towards Freight and Foreign Travel submitted by the assessee. During the course of hearing written submissions were made from the perusal of which it is noticed that for sample invoices from both Unit I II the expenses are clearly identified separately and tracked separately. It is also noticed from the perusal of the submissions that the assessee has provided all the relevant details before the lower authorities to substantiate the claim that the expenses are booked on actual basis and that there is a direct nexus of the expenses to the Unit. No infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the AO towards deduction u/s 10AA. The grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) towards short deduction of TDS - HELD THAT - From the perusal of the evidences submitted by the assessee we notice that the AO failed to consider the fact that the assessee has made advance payments to M/s. Hariom Enterprises on which tax has been deducted at source. When the tax deducted on total payments including the advance is considered we are convinced that there is no short deduction of tax at source by the assessee. We notice that the CIT(A) has considered the above fact as substantiated by the assessee with documentary evidences such as Form 16A Form 26AS and has deleted the disallowance. Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A) in this regard. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

The core legal questions considered in this appeal by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2022-23 are:

(a) Whether the assessee correctly allocated export freight charges and foreign travelling charges between its taxable Unit-I and exempt Unit-II (claiming deduction under section 10AA), given the nominal claim of such expenses in Unit-II compared to Unit-I, despite both units being engaged in similar export business and Unit-II having higher turnover.

(b) Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in disallowing a deduction of Rs. 4,02,78,019/- under section 10AA on the ground that export freight and foreign travelling expenses attributable to Unit-II were improperly treated as expenses of Unit-I, without correlating sales and freight charges between the two units.

(c) Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) relating to TDS on contract charges paid to Hari Om Enterprises, despite the assessee's failure to furnish bank statements to verify advance payments and TDS deductions.

Issue 1: Disallowance of Deduction under Section 10AA on Allocation of Export Freight and Foreign Travelling Charges

The legal framework involves section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, which provides deduction for profits derived from export units located in Special Economic Zones (SEZs). The issue revolves around whether expenses such as export freight and foreign travelling charges have been correctly allocated between Unit-I (taxable) and Unit-II (exempt under section 10AA) to ensure only expenses related to Unit-II are considered for deduction.

The AO observed that the assessee debited Rs. 7,95,57,469/- as export freight charges and Rs. 9,98,568/- as foreign travelling charges to Unit-I, while claiming a deduction of nearly Rs. 7.99 crores under section 10AA for Unit-II. The AO suspected that the assessee transferred these expenses to Unit-I to inflate the deduction claim for Unit-II, as Unit-II showed higher turnover but nominal expenses. The AO rejected the assessee's submission of maintaining separate books for the two units and that expenses were directly booked to respective units, holding that expenses of Unit-II were booked in Unit-I to claim higher deduction. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the deduction under section 10AA to the extent of these expenses.

On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance after examining the details submitted by the assessee, including unit-wise export details and freight charges. The assessee demonstrated that Unit-I and Unit-II catered to different foreign markets (USA and Europe respectively), maintained separate books, and booked freight and foreign travel expenses under Selling & Distribution expenses for Unit-II. Sample invoices and freight bills were produced to substantiate separate tracking of expenses.

The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order, arguing that mere maintenance of separate books cannot be conclusive proof of correct expense allocation and that the CIT(A) failed to provide proper findings to justify deletion of the AO's addition.

The Tribunal analyzed the facts and submissions, noting that the AO did not consider the detailed breakup of expenses and the rationale for lower profits in Unit-I. The Tribunal observed that the assessee provided comprehensive documentary evidence linking expenses directly to each unit, including sample invoices and freight bills, showing actual tracking of expenses. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance as the assessee's claim was substantiated and the AO's assumption of diversion of expenses was not supported by material. The Tribunal concluded that there was no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's grounds on this issue.

Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for Short Deduction of TDS on Contract Charges

Section 40(a)(ia) disallows expenditure if tax is not deducted or paid on specified payments such as contract charges under section 194C. The AO noticed payments of Rs. 5,60,12,684/- made to M/s. Hariom Enterprises with only Rs. 4,11,185/- tax deducted, alleging short deduction of TDS. Consequently, the AO disallowed Rs. 1,06,36,030/- under section 40(a)(ia).

The assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the AO ignored TDS deducted on advance payments made to Hariom Enterprises. The assessee submitted documentary evidence including Form 16A and Form 26AS showing TDS deducted on advance payments totaling Rs. 7,13,000/- and on final payments totaling Rs. 4,15,477/-, aggregating Rs. 11,28,477/- TDS on total payments of Rs. 5,64,23,867/-. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's submissions and deleted the disallowance.

The revenue challenged this deletion, arguing that the assessee failed to furnish bank statements to verify advance payments and TDS deductions, rendering the claim unverified.

The Tribunal examined the documentary evidence and submissions. It noted that the assessee provided detailed payment and TDS deduction records, including Form 16A and Form 26AS, which the AO failed to consider. The Tribunal found that when TDS on advance payments is included, there was no short deduction of tax. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that disallowance was unwarranted and dismissed the revenue's grounds.

Significant Holdings:

On the issue of allocation of export freight and foreign travelling expenses between taxable and exempt units, the Tribunal held: "The assessee has provided all the relevant details before the lower authorities to substantiate the claim that the expenses are booked on actual basis and that there is a direct nexus of the expenses to the Unit. In view of these discussions, we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the AO towards deduction under section 10AA."

On the issue of TDS deduction on contract charges, the Tribunal observed: "From the perusal of the evidences submitted by the assessee we notice that the AO failed to consider the fact that the assessee has made advance payments to M/s. Hariom Enterprises on which tax has been deducted at source. When the tax deducted on total payments including the advance is considered, we are convinced that there is no short deduction of tax at source by the assessee."

The Tribunal affirmed the principle that detailed documentary evidence including separate books of accounts, invoices, and TDS certificates must be examined holistically before making disallowances. Mere assumptions or failure to correlate expenses without proper scrutiny cannot justify disallowance of deductions under section 10AA or under section 40(a)(ia).

Final determinations were that the revenue's appeal was dismissed on both grounds. The CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under section 10AA and section 40(a)(ia) was upheld, confirming that the assessee's allocation of expenses and TDS compliance were proper and substantiated.

← Previous Next →