Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. What follows from the above is that normally the ordinary rule is to be applied, namely, revenue expenditure incurred in a particular year is to be allowed in that year. Thus, if the assessee claims that expenditure in that year, the IT Department cannot deny the same. However, in those cases where the assessee himself wants to spread the expenditure over a period of ensuing years, it can be allowed only if the principle of 'Matching Concept' is satisfied, which upto now has been restricted to the cases of debentures.

5.1 Before us, the learned counsel submitted that the ad-hoc disallowance of revenue expenditure is not in accordance with law. He relied on the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. The Salora International Ltd. reported in 308 ITR 199 (Del) and CIT Vs. Spice Distribution Ltd. reported in 374 ITR 30 (Del) to submit that expenditure incurred on sales promotion is revenue expenditure. It was contended that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure under the Act as held in the case of CIT Vs. Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Limited, 330 ITR 29. 5.2 On the contrary, the Ld. Senior DR submitted that the assessee has not furnished the details of expenditure incurred and failed to establish the nexus of expenditure incurred with the business of the assessee and therefore, in such circumstances the Ld. CIT-A was justified in restricting the claim of expenditure to the extent of 50%. 5.3 Having considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, we are of the opinion that no basis whatsoever has been stated by the authorities to restrict the expenditure to 50% of the claim or 1/5th of the claim. The reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on the judgment of the Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited Vs. CIT (supra) is misconceived, misplaced and contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the Taparia Tools Limited Vs. JCIT (supra), wherein it is laid down that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure and is only at the instance of the assessee, a revenue expenditure can be spread or under the principle of matching concept and not otherwise. The Ld. CIT-A has observed that in respect of expenditure of key chains amounting to Rs.96,546/- to distributors and amounting to Rs.3,23,560/- to Doctors, the assessee did not ITA Nos. 6005 & 6006/Del/2013 establish that same was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. We observed that the assessee vide reply dated 12/08/2013 had submitted before the Ld. CIT-A that such expenditure was incurred for business of the company amongst various doctors and health workers who attended seminars. It was also stated that turnover of the assessee company has increased from Rs 31.86 crores to Rs. 42.04 crores. We find that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Ld. CIT-A has disputed the genuineness of the expenditure. In such circumstances, once the genuineness of the expenditure is not in dispute, the commercial expediency cannot be rejected on the ground of suspicion. No material was led by the revenue to allege that the expenditure incurred in the course of business is not an eligible expenditure. We accept the contention of the Ld. counsel that it is not possible to get receipt of keychains either from the doctors or distributors distributed for the purpose of development of the business of the assessee . The entire action of the authorities below is based on suspicion and therefore found untenable. Accordingly, the disallowance made on this account is deleted and the ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed.