Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Vgp Housing (P) Ltd on 4 August, 2014
Bench: R.Sudhakar, G.M.Akbar Ali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 4.8.2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI T.C.(A).Nos.714 to 727 of 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Chennai 600 034. .. Appellant Vs. VGP Housing (P) Ltd. VGP Square Dharmaraja Koil Street Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. .. Respondent PRAYER: Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'C' Bench, dated 21.12.2010 made in ITA Nos.641 to 647 and 515 to 521/Mds/2012 for the assessment years 2003-2004 to 2009-2010. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.S.Sridharan J U D G M E N T
(Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR, J.) These appeals are filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 21.12.2010, made in ITA Nos.641 to 647 and 515 to 521/Mds/2012 for the assessment years 2003-2004 to 2009-2010, by raising the following substantial questions of law:
(For all the Assessment Years)
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in restricting the disallowance, including the offer made by the assessee, shall not exceed 10% of the land development expenses incurred in cash by the assessee?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in restricting the disallowance, including the offer made by the assessee, shall not exceed 10% of the land development expenses and if such direction is followed the income determined after the appeal effect will be less than the income offered by the assessee?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in deleting interest disallowance without noting that the assessee has not produced any evidence for the advances given were out of interest free funds?
(Except for Assessment Years 2003-2004 and 2008-2009)
4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in allowing the depreciation claimed by the assessee as per old provisions, without noting that the Assessing Officer has correctly allowed depreciation as per the depreciation chart applicable to the relevant assessment years?
(For Assessment Year 2009-2010)
5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition on account of drawings of directors without noting that the assessee has debited the amount under the head 'sales promotion and travelling expenses'? 2.1. The brief facts of the case are as under: A search and seizure operation was conducted in VGP Group on 3.3.2009. Consequent to such search operation, notice under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act (for brevity, the Act) dated 17.3.2010 was duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notice under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were duly served upon the assessee. In response to the notice under Section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed revised return of income on 29.7.2010 for all assessment years except 2009-2010. For the assessment year 2009-2010, the assessee filed its returns on 30.9.2009.
2.2. In the course of search, it was found by the Department that the assessee was suppressing its profits through claim of inflated land development expenditure. It is the case of the Revenue that the assessee purchased land at a nominal rate; developed the same and sold them in plots at a low rate and such sale price of each plot included land development charges, apart from the basic value of the plot and other expenses like stamp duty, registration expenses, etc. The assessee debited the expenditure incurred on development of the plots project wise to the profit and loss account filed along with the return of income. The assessee produced vouchers in respect of the expenditure incurred towards land development and that was perused by the Department and found to be self-serving documents. The Department was of the view that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for land development is inflated.
2.3. During the course of the search proceedings, on 3.3.2009, one of the Directors of VGP Housing Private Limited admitted that there was an element of inflation of expenses towards land development and he stated that the inflation in respect of land development expenses would be around Rs.1.20 Crores in respect of all the concerns of the group for the years 2002-03 to 2008-09. On such premise, the Assessing Officer restricted the claim of development expenses to 80% of the actual claim, warranting a disallowance of 20%.
2.4. In addition to the above, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for interest payment in respect of loans availed from banks and financial institutions, stating that it has advanced certain amounts to group companies without any interest. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not furnished any business exigency, necessity or compulsion to advance loans to its group companies without any interest.
2.5. The next issue which was considered by the Assessing Officer was the claim of the assessee for depreciation on roads and electrical fittings at the rate of 20%. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee had claimed excess depreciation at the rate of 20% as against the eligible rate of 10% and 15% respectively for all assessment years except 2003-2004 and 2008-2009. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation at 20%.
2.6. Apropos of drawings by the Directors debited under the head sales promotion and travelling expenses during the assessment year 2009-2010, the Assessing Officer held that the expenses debited under the said head are purely personal expenditure of the individual directors and the same cannot be debited in the company's accounts. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee under this head.
2.7. The assessee appealed against the said order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by order dated 22.12.2011 made in I.T.A.Nos.200 to 20610-11, restricted the disallowance on land development expenses to 5%, as against 20% disallowance ordered by the Assessing Officer.
2.8. The claim of the assessee for interest payment, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) holding as follows:
14. I have considered the facts and circumstances and the arguments of the ld.AR. As contended, there is no diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. Moneys have not been advanced during this year. Moneys advanced in the earlier year were out of interest free funds. Even th moneys advanced have been used by the sister concerns only for the purpose of business. The decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal, in a sister concern of this group, on identical facts, is seen to apply to the case of the appellant. Therefore, the disallowances made for all the years is hereby directed to be deleted. 2.9. Anent the claim of depreciation on roads and electrical fittings for all assessment years except 2003-04 and 2008-09, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), noticing that it is an expenditure incurred towards maintenance of roads in the amusement park, came to hold that 20% depreciation claimed by the assessee is perfectly in order. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reads as under:
24. I have considered the arguments of the ld.AR and the decisions relied upon. The fact that these roads connect the various amusement rides within the park with one another has not been disputed. That the roads are not pucca roads and are only kutcha roads have also not been disputed. Since these roads are not adjunct to any building and there is no other construction except these roads, the decisions relied upon by the appellant are applicable to the facts of this case. The electrical fittings are beside these roads. Therefore, it is directed that depreciation as claimed on the roads, as well as the electrical fittings is to be allowed. The grounds on these issues are therefore fully allowed for all the years in question. 2.10. With regard to the next issue relating to drawings of directors and debiting the amount under the head Sales promotion and travelling expenses, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessee that the said amount was debited to the partnership firm, in which the directors were partners, and these moneys are due to the assessee from the partnership firm and are shown as either recovered or recoverable during the subsequent assessment years and held that the claim made by the assessee is justified. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
30. During the course of appeal proceedings, it was shown that the moneys drawn from the appellant company were debited to the partnership firm in which the directors were partners. The said entries in the ledger account of the directors were basically posted for keeping track of the transactions. While finalising the accounts, the moneys drawn from the company were debited to the account of the partnership firms and these money due to the appellant company from the partnership firms were either recovered or shown as recoverable for the subsequent assessment years.
31. In short, the moneys drawn from the appellant are transferred to the firms. The appellant shows it as due from the firms. The firms take it to the individual account of the partners. This is the accounting procedure followed. I have examined the entries and I find that the explanation offered by the appellant is correct. 2.11. Assailing the said order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as the Revenue preferred appeals before the Tribunal, which partly allowed the appeals filed by either side. The Tribunal, in effect, held as under:
(i)directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance of expenses towards land development to 10%;
(ii)confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of deleting the disallowance of interest payment;
(iii)confirmed that 20% depreciation claimed by the assessee is perfectly in order; and
(iv) the drawings of directors and debiting the amount under the head Sales promotion and travelling expenses is fully justified.
2.12. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed these appeals raising the substantial questions of law, referred supra. The assessee has not chosen to file any appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the orders passed by the Tribunal and the authorities below.
4. The substantial questions of law raised are dealt with on the trot as under.
Substantial Questions of Law (1) and (2) (For All Assessment Years) 5.1. On the issue relating to disallowance of land development expenses, the assessee as well as the department preferred appeals before the Tribunal stating that the percentage of disallowance ordered is erroneous and the Tribunal held as under:
11. We agree with the view of the Assessing Officer that the nature of business of the assessee is such that incurring such expenses in cash towards land development is necessary, especially for labour payments. We also agree that it is very difficult to obtain third party vouchers as the labourers employed are uneducated and, therefore, the assessee is forced to support such expenses only by self generated vouchers. At the same time, it cannot be held that the entire expenses recorded by the assessee should be allowed, especially when it was found that the assessee has inflated expenses substantially. The Assessing Officer established with reference to seized material in a number instances that the land development charges claimed are at 70% to 80% of the land cost and in some instances it went up to 90% of the total sale consideration. Taking into consideration the nature of business, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance of expenses towards land development incurred in cash to 10% after taking into consideration the offer made by the assessee. In other words, the total disallowance, including the offer made by the assessee should not exceed 10% of the land development expenses incurred in cash by the assessee. 5.2. The plea of the Revenue before us is that the Tribunal, while directing the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 10%, ought not to have stated that including the offer made by the assessee, the disallowance should not exceed 10% of the land development charges incurred by the assessee.
5.3. However, this issue appears to have been clarified by the Tribunal by order dated 7.6.2013 made in M.P.Nos.61 to 68/Mds/2013. In paragraph (5) of the said order, the Tribunal held as under:
5. Considering the submissions of both the parties and on going through the order of this Tribunal, we notice that there is a mistake apparent on record in the above said portion of the order which should be modified and shall be read as under:-
'11. xxxx Taking into consideration the nature of business, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance of expenses towards land development incurred in cash to 10% after taking into consideration the offer made by the assessee. In other words, the total disallowance including the offer made by the assessee should not exceed 10% of the land development expenses incurred in cash by the assessee. We make it clear that in any of the these assessment years in case the offer made by the assessee is more than 10% of land development expenses incurred in cash, in such circumstances, the Assessing Officer should restrict the disallowance to the offer made by the assessee and not 10% of land development expenses incurred in cash. 5.4. In view of the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal on 7.6.2013 in M.P.Nos.61 to 68/Mds/2013, the Revenue is not aggrieved by the order impugned in these appeals on this issue. The assessee is also not aggrieved by the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal.
5.5. In view of the above, the substantial questions of law (1) and (2) does not require to be considered any further and accordingly, they are not answered.
Substantial Question of Law (3) (For All Assessment Years) 6.1. This issue pertains to interest payment. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest on the ground that the assessee extended loans to its group companies without any interest. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that monies have not been advanced during the year and they were advanced in earlier years out of interest free funds and, therefore, there is no diversion of borrowed funds by the assessee for non-business purposes. In such view of the matter, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance of interest.
6.2. The Tribunal, while considering the said issue, noticed that similar transaction came for scrutiny in the case of VGP Investments in I.T.A.Nos.975, 976/Mds/02 and 677/Mds/03, dated 12.10.2007 and the earlier Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee and that order has been accepted by the Revenue and was not appealed against. The Tribunal held that the facts in the present case are identical to the earlier case and the Department having not produced any material to controvert the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was confirmed on the said issue.
6.3. It is not in dispute that the Department has not appealed against the order of the Tribunal in I.T.A.Nos.975, 976/Mds/02 and 677/Mds/03, dated 12.10.2007 passed under identical circumstances. That apart, the Department has not produced before this Court any iota of material rebutting the finding arrived at by the Tribunal in this case. The Department has also not pointed out any specific error of law committed by the Tribunal on this issue.
6.4. In such view of the matter, this substantial question of law is answered against the Revenue.
Substantial Question of Law (4) (For All Assessment Years, except 2003-2004 and 2008-2009) 7.1. This issue relates to depreciation on roads and electrical fittings. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for depreciation at the rate of 20% and held that the assessee is eligible for depreciation only at the rate of 10% and 15%. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) modified the same and allowed depreciation at 20% by placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Indore Municipal Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2001] 247 ITR 803 and a decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chemaux Ltd., [1994] 74 Taxman 201. The Tribunal, on appeal, confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
7.2. In the case of Indore Municipal Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2001] 247 ITR 803, the reason for granting higher depreciation was justified by stating that the road in question was not adjunct to any buildings and, therefore, cannot be classified under buildings for depreciation purposes. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chemaux Ltd., [1994] 74 Taxman 201, the Bombay High Court held that any expenditure incurred for repair or resurfacing of kutcha roads inside the factory is revenue expenditure.
7.3. The Tribunal, while confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), held that since in the case on hand the roads are not adjunct to any building and there is no other construction except these roads, the decisions, referred supra, would squarely apply and granted depreciation as claimed by the assessee.
7.4. To shed light on this issue, it would be relevant to refer to the Table of Rates at which depreciation is admissible, which finds place in Old Appendix-I (Applicable for assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06). The relevant portion of the table reads as under:
Block of assets Depreciation allowance as percentage of written down value 1 2 I BUILDING.
(1) xxx (2) Buildings other than those used mainly for residential purposes and not covered by sub-items (1) above and (3) below.10
The note to the said Old Appendix-I states as under:
1. Buildings include roads, bridges, culverts, wells and tubewells. 7.5. In the case on hand, admittedly, the roads connect the various amusement rides within the park with one another. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the roads are not adjunct to any buildings and, therefore, cannot be classified under buildings for depreciation purposes. A reading of the above said provision makes it clear that building includes roads, bridges, culverts, wells and tubewells. The said provision is not restricted to only roads adjacent to buildings. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal having not considered this aspect fell into error in accepting the assessee's plea that 20% depreciation on roads and electrical fittings should be allowed. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer was justified in restricting depreciation to 10% and 15%, as applicable in the respect assessment years, in terms of the Old Appendix-I (Applicable for assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06).
7.6. In such view of the matter, this substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Substantial Question of Law (5) (For Assessment Year 2009-2010) 8.1. This issue pertains to drawings by the Directors debited under the head sales promotion and travelling expenses during the assessment year 2009-2010.
8.2. We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the assessee that the said amount was debited to the partnership firm, in which the directors were partners, and these moneys are due to the assessee from the partnership firm and are shown as either recovered or recoverable during the subsequent assessment years and held that the claim made by the assessee is justified.
8.3. To controvert the above said view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, the learned Standing Counsel for the Department relied upon the statement made by one of the Directors and we extract the same hereunder for better clarity on this issue:
Whenever any personal expenses (not incidental to the business) is incurred by any Director, the expenses are recorded by debiting personal account of the director and the amounts are transferred as loan to the partnership firms (V.G.P. & Co., VGP Investments) and subsequently booked as drawings in the partner's capital/current account. However, no actual transfer of funds to the Partnership firms and drawings from the firms takes place. Personal expenses are met out of the bank accounts of VGP Housing Pvt Ltd only. Apart from this, the personal expenses such as credit card expenses, foreign travel expenses of directors, household expenses etc are debited under the head 'Sales Promotion & Travelling Expenses' in the VGP Housing (P) Ltd / VGP & Co Pvt Ltd books of account. I admit that the extent of such personal expenses (consolidated for all group concerns) debited under these heads of account would be around Rs.1 Crore for the period 2003-04 to 2008-09. 8.4. A reading of the above said statement makes it clear that there is a clear admission by the Director that the personal expenses are met out of the bank accounts of the assessee only. It is also stated that credit card expenses, foreign travel expenses of directors, household expenses, etc. are debited under the head Sales Promotion and Travelling Expenses in the VGP Housing (P) Ltd / VGP & Co Pvt Ltd books of account.
8.5. The Assessing Officer, on the basis of the said statement, held that the expenses under the head Sales Promotion and Travelling Expenses are purely personal expenditure of the individual directors and the same cannot be debited in the company's accounts. We find that the there is a clear contradiction between the statement made by the Director, referred to above, and the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The facts do not support the finding rendered by the appellate authorities.
8.6. The learned counsel for the assessee states that there are materials to substantiate the plea that there was reversal of entries relating to monies transferred from the assessee company to the firm. No material has been placed before us, except the said statement made by the learned counsel for the assessee. In any event, that is an issue which has to be decided on facts by the competent authority, by considering the materials that may be produced by the assessee in contradiction to the stand taken by the Department on the basis of the statement made by one of the Directors of the assessee.
8.7. In such view of the matter, we hold that the issue relating to deleting the addition on account of drawings of directors should be considered by the Assessing Officer on merits based on materials to be produced by the assessee. Only to determine this issue, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer.
9. Resultantly, these appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2013 (13 Petitions) are closed.
(R.S.J.) (G.M.A.J.)
4.8.2014
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
sasi
To:
1.The Assistant Registrar,
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Chennai Bench "C", Chennai.
2.The Secretary, Central Board
of Direct Taxes, New Delhi.
3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I
Chennai 600 034.
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Central Circle IV(3)
Chennai.
R.SUDHAKAR,J.
and
G.M.AKBAR ALI,J.
(sasi)
T.C.(A).Nos.714 to 727 of 2013
4.8.2014