2025 (7) TMI 430 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) - excess payment made to the related party should not be disallowed in terms of with Section 40A(2)(b) - Assessee submitted that the additions disallowances made by the AO are not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search - HELD THAT - For assessment year under dispute assessee was subjected to assessment u/s. 143(3) much prior to date of search and seizure operation. Thus on the date of search and seizure operation there was no assessment proceeding pending for the impugned assessment year. That being the case in a proceeding initiated u/s. 153A of the Act the AO could have considered issues for addition which are based on incriminating materials found as a result of search and seizure operation. Whereas while completing the assessment u/s.153A r.w.s. 143 of the Act the AO has made certain statutory disallowances u/s.40A(2)(b) and 37(1) of the Act. The information relating to aforesaid expenses claimed as deduction has already been furnished by the assessee and were part of the original assessment proceeding. In the assessment proceeding undertaken u/s. 153A of the Act the AO has merely revisited the material already available on record and concluded that certain expenses are not allowable to the assessee in terms with certain provisions of the Act. There is nothing either in the assessment order or any other material placed on record by the Department to suggest that the fact of payment of charter hire charges and couple of other deductions claimed by the assessee were unearthed only because of search and seizure operation. Therefore additions/disallowances made by the AO are unsustainable as they are not based on any incriminating material which is an essential ingredient for making addition in a proceeding u/s. 153A of the Act in respect of unabated assessment. No hesitation in deleting the additions made by the AO. This ground is allowed. In view of our decision above grounds raised on merits both in assessee s appeal as well as in appeal of the Revenue have become infructuous. Disallowance of sales promotion expenses - AO noticed assessee has incurred certain expenses viz sundry expenses sales promotion expenses and expenses for gift out of which suo-motu assessee has disallowed 50% and claimed 50% of the expenditure as deduction - Stating that the assessee could not establish that the expenses were incurred for the purpose of business the AO disallowed the balance amount of expenditure - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee has disallowed 50% of the total expenses since they were incurred in cash and were not fully supported by vouchers. Since the assessee itself has disallowed 50% of the total expenditure incurred and claimed deduction balance 50% in our view it is reasonable hence does not require further disallowance. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the disallowance. This ground is allowed. Addition u/s. 40A(2)(b) - amount paid in excess of the market value determined by way of the transaction between SML and the unrelated parties - HELD THAT - AO has not made an apple to apple or orange to orange comparison between the ships/vessels given on hire by SML to assessee and unrelated parties. AO has worked out average of hire charges paid by aggregating the entire tonnage of all the vessels both in case of the assessee and unrelated party. This in our view is totally unscientific and cannot represent the market value of hire charges of vessels. As rightly observed by learned First Appellate Authority the hire charges of vessels widely vary depending their tonnage. The hire charges cannot be determined by aggregating the tonnage of all the vessels given on hire. Pertinently on analyzing the data available on record learned First Appellate Authority has found that two vessels given on hire are common both in case of transaction between SML and the assessee as well as SML and unrelated parties. Therefore he has made a fair comparison between such vessels and found that the hire charges received by SML from assessee is much lesser than the hire charges received from unrelated parties. That being the factual position emerging on record we do not find any justifiable reason for invoking the provision of Section 40A(2)(b) which postulates that in case assessee incurs any expenditure by way of payment made to any related party which is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods/services such excess payment can be disallowed. In the facts of the present case admittedly on a fair comparison it is found that hire charges paid by the assessee to SML for same vessels is much lesser than the hire charges paid by the unrelated parties to SML. DR made an attempt to deviate from the methodology adopted by the AO in determining the fair market value of the hire charges to impress upon us that the hire charges paid by the assessee is more than the hire charges paid by unrelated parties however we are unable to accept such contention of learned Departmental Representative as such methodology now adopted by DR is neither the case of the AO nor learned First Appellate Authority. There being no infirmity in the decision of learned First Appellate Authority which is scientific and reasonable we uphold the deletion of disallowance made by the AO. This ground is dismissed. Disallowance of victualling expenses - AO ultimately concluded that the assessee failed to establish that the entire expenditure was incurred for the purpose of business thus on adhoc basis disallowed 25% - HELD THAT - Victualling expense was incurred by the assessee towards fooding and boarding of crew and other members on board the vessels at high sea. The assessee had incurred such expenses towards the personnel on board by making provision of supply of food material. From the material on record it is further noticed that in support of the claim the assessee had not only furnished the details of personnel on board but had also furnished the chart of food served to the crew/personnel on board. Even other supporting evidences were also furnished before the AO. Without pointing out any specific defect/deficiencies in the claim of the assessee the AO has disallowed 25% of the expenditure claimed on purely ad-hoc basis without any cogent reasoning.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in the appeals relate primarily to the validity and scope of assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") following search and seizure operations, and the correctness of disallowances made under Sections 40A(2)(b) and 37(1) of the Act. Specifically, the issues include:

• Whether additions/disallowances made in assessment proceedings under Section 153A are sustainable when no incriminating material was found during the search and seizure operation, particularly where the assessment for the relevant year was already completed under Section 143(3).
• The validity of disallowance of excessive charter hire charges paid by the assessee to its related party (holding company) under Section 40A(2)(b), including the appropriate method for determining fair market value of such hire charges.
• The correctness of disallowance of sales promotion expenses and victualling expenses on grounds of non-establishment of business purpose or lack of supporting evidence.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Assessment under Section 153A when no incriminating material is found post search and seizure

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 153A of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer (AO) to reassess or reassess income for assessment years relevant to the search if incriminating material is found. The Supreme Court decisions cited (PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., PCIT vs. Jay Ace Technologies Ltd., PCIT vs. Kind Buildcon (P) Ltd., and CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society) emphasize that additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search and seizure operation.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the assessment for AY 2012-13 was completed under Section 143(3) prior to the search and seizure. The AO, while proceeding under Section 153A, revisited issues already examined and made disallowances under Sections 40A(2)(b) and 37(1) based on material already available in the original assessment. The Court emphasized that no new incriminating material was unearthed during the search justifying these additions.

Key evidence and findings: The AO's disallowance of 25% of charter hire charges and other expenses was not supported by any fresh incriminating evidence. The original return and assessment already contained the relevant details.

Application of law to facts: Since Section 153A proceedings are triggered only when incriminating material is found, and no such material was found in respect of these expenses, the AO's disallowance was unsustainable.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that jurisdiction under Section 153A was valid as incriminating material was found during the search. The Court rejected this, holding that additions must be based on such material, which was absent here.

Conclusion: The Court deleted the disallowances made under Section 153A for AY 2012-13, holding them invalid for lack of incriminating material.

Issue 2: Disallowance of sales promotion expenses for AY 2017-18

Relevant legal framework: Expenses must be incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes to be allowable deductions. Unsupported or non-business expenses can be disallowed.

Court's reasoning: The assessee had itself disallowed 50% of these expenses due to lack of vouchers and claimed the balance 50%. The AO disallowed the remaining 50% for failure to establish business purpose.

Key findings: The Court found the assessee's self-disallowance reasonable and saw no justification for further disallowance.

Application of law to facts: Since the assessee voluntarily disallowed half the expenses, the balance claimed was allowed as reasonable business expenditure.

Competing arguments: The Revenue argued for full disallowance; the Court rejected this.

Conclusion: The Court directed deletion of the additional disallowance and allowed the ground in favor of the assessee.

Issue 3: Disallowance of charter hire charges under Section 40A(2)(b) for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19

Legal framework and precedents: Section 40A(2)(b) disallows expenditure in excess of fair market value paid to related parties. Fair market value must be determined on a reasonable and scientific basis.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO had compared average hire charges per day per tonnage across all vessels given on hire to the assessee and unrelated parties by the holding company, aggregating tonnage indiscriminately. The First Appellate Authority found this approach flawed because charter hire charges vary widely depending on vessel capacity and tonnage, and vessels with different tonnage cannot be compared directly.

The First Appellate Authority identified only two vessels common to both the assessee and unrelated parties and compared their hire charges individually. It was found that the assessee paid less than unrelated parties for these vessels.

Key evidence and findings: Detailed data on hire charges and tonnage of vessels, showing that the AO's aggregate comparison was unscientific, and that for comparable vessels, the assessee paid less.

Application of law to facts: Since the assessee's payments were not excessive or unreasonable compared to fair market value, no disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) was warranted.

Competing arguments: The Revenue contended that some vessels had comparable tonnage and that hire charges paid by the assessee were higher, but conceded the AO did not apply this methodology. The Court rejected this new approach as it was neither the AO's nor the First Appellate Authority's methodology.

Conclusion: The Court upheld the deletion of disallowance of charter hire charges for both AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19.

Issue 4: Disallowance of victualling expenses for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19

Legal framework: Expenses incurred for business purposes and supported by evidence are allowable deductions.

Court's reasoning: The victualling expenses related to food and boarding of crew on vessels at sea. The assessee furnished detailed supporting evidence, including personnel details and food charts. The AO disallowed 25% of the expenses on an ad hoc basis without pointing to specific defects.

Key findings: The Court found no cogent reason for the AO's ad hoc disallowance and noted that similar disallowance was deleted for AY 2012-13.

Application of law to facts: Given the supporting evidence and lack of specific deficiencies, the expenses were held to be business-related and allowable.

Competing arguments: The Revenue's challenge was dismissed due to absence of substantive basis for disallowance.

Conclusion: The Court upheld deletion of the disallowance of victualling expenses for both years.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"In a proceeding initiated u/s. 153A of the Act, the AO could have considered issues for addition which are based on incriminating materials found as a result of search and seizure operation. Whereas, while completing the assessment u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143 of the Act, the AO has made certain statutory disallowances u/s. 40A(2)(b) and 37(1) of the Act... There is nothing either in the assessment order or any other material placed on record by the Department to suggest that the fact of payment of charter hire charges and couple of other deductions claimed by the assessee were unearthed only because of search and seizure operation. Therefore, in our view, the additions/disallowances made by the AO are unsustainable as they are not based on any incriminating material, which is an essential ingredient for making addition in a proceeding u/s. 153A of the Act in respect of unabated assessment."

"Hire charges of vessels widely vary depending their tonnage. Therefore, the hire charges cannot be determined by aggregating the tonnage of all the vessels given on hire... On analyzing the data available on record, learned First Appellate Authority has found that two vessels given on hire are common both in case of transaction between SML and the assessee as well as SML and unrelated parties. Therefore, he has made a fair comparison between such vessels and found that the hire charges received by SML from assessee is much lesser than the hire charges received from unrelated parties."

"Victualling expense was incurred by the assessee towards fooding and boarding of crew and other members on board the vessels at high sea... Without pointing out any specific defect/deficiencies in the claim of the assessee, the AO has disallowed 25% of the expenditure claimed on purely ad-hoc basis without any cogent reasoning. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned First Appellate Authority in deleting the disallowance."

The Tribunal conclusively held that disallowances under Section 40A(2)(b) must be based on a scientifically reasonable comparison of fair market value, and that additions under Section 153A require incriminating material discovered during search. Ad hoc or unsupported disallowances are unsustainable.

Final determinations on each issue:

• Disallowances made in Section 153A proceedings without incriminating material were deleted (AY 2012-13).
• Sales promotion expenses disallowance was deleted as the assessee had reasonably disallowed 50% and claimed balance as business expense (AY 2017-18).
• Disallowance of excessive charter hire charges was deleted on scientific comparison of comparable vessels showing no excess payment (AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19).
• Disallowance of victualling expenses was deleted due to adequate supporting evidence and lack of cogent reasons for AO's ad hoc disallowance (AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19).