Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9.2 It can be seen that the Sales/turnover of the assesse has decreased during the year as compared to the previous year, however there is substantial increase under the above expenses for which no satisfactory explanation has been provided by the assessee. The assessee could not furnish the supporting documents in support of its contention. The assessee had not furnished any genuine reasons for increase in above expenses during the year as compared to previous year. I am afraid that mere making payment through bank will not entitle the assessee for claiming expenditure UIs 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is the first and foremost liability of assessee to prove that the expenditure incurred by him qualifies the necessary test of section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. I find support in my view from the case of CIT v.

6.8.3.2 AO could not bring anything on record to show that expenses claimed by the appellant were not genuine and it was not for business purpose. AO disallowed the expenses merely because Sales/turnover of the Appellant hag decreased during the year as compared •to the previous year however, corresponding freight expenses did not reduce. However, it is not necessary that all the expenses are exactly linked to sales so as to make proportionate changes in the said expenses with any increase or decrease in the sales.

assessee that the entire payment of freight are duly backed by invoices which proves the genuineness of said expenditure, therefore, no disallowance is called for. 14.3 Ld. CIT(A) found substance in the submissions of the assessee and have decided the issue in favour of the assessee with his conviction that (i) Nothing was brought on record by the Ld. AO that expenses claimed by the appellant are not genuine, (ii) that the expenses are not for business purposes and (iii) the disallowance was proposed on the basis of decrease in sales / turnover of the assessee, without examining and enquiring that there might be reason for certain expenses which not necessarily behave in the same fashion in which the sales / turnover is increasing and decreasing. Since the genuineness of expenditure and the evidence furnished by the assessee in the form of invoice of the expenditure incurred are not disbelieved / disputed by the Ld. AO, therefore, the disallowance made was only on the basis of presumption, surmises and guesswork thus, cannot sustain and are liable to be deleted.

during the assessment proceedings, Ld. AO had critically analysed the trend of assessee's turnover which was slightly decreased, whereas the impugned expenditure are substantially increased. The assessee could not furnish the supporting documents to substantiate its contention while explaining the reasons for increasing subject expenses. Under such circumstances, in absence of any genuine or plausible reason explained by the assessee, the disallowance made by the Ld. AO was reasonable and deserves to be sustained. It was, therefore, the prayer that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is liable to be reversed.