URLIFE LIFESTYLE WELLNESS LIMITED,HYDERABAD V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2160/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves URLIFE Lifestyle Wellness Ltd., the appellant, contesting the disallowance of professional and consultancy expenses amounting to Rs.63,96,717 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. The expenses were initially disallowed by the AO under sections 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to insufficient evidence proving the business nexus of the expenses. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the disallowance, leading to the appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which was not previously available during the lower proceedings, and decided to remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment in light of the new evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788703 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T. MYTHILI
• Assessee Lawyers: K.ABHIROOP BHARGAV
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Business expenditure; Corroborative evidences; Capital expenditure; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 32; 11; 37(1)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,‘ए’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी जगदȣश, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2160/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2021-22 URLIFE Lifestyle Wellness Ltd., 2nd Floor, Apollo Health City, Apollo Hospitals Complex, Jubilee Hills, Film Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 096. PAN: AADCA 8021H Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 4(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri K. Abhiroop Bhargav, CA ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 10.06.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2021-22. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2160/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. The grounds raised read as follows: 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Order u/s 143(3) rws 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) is bad in law; 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO/NFAC erred in disallowing professional and consultancy expenses amounting to Rs.63,96,717 as not being incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business; 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The AO in the assessment completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 24.12.2022 had disallowed the sum of Rs.63,96,717/- by observing as under:- “B. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the assessee has claimed consultancy expenses of Rs.66,50,917/-. The assessee has filed reply with detail of expenses. The assessee failed to submit the description of services. The assessee has submitted that it has hired consultant as the assessee has limited employees. It is essential that documentary evidence of services and business nexus for any expenditure incurred by the assessee is very necessary. In view of the above it can be concluded that where an assessee claims a deduction the onus is on him to bring all material facts on record to substantiate his claim. Mere production of vouchers in support of the claim for deduction of the expenditure would not prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. It cannot be disputed that before an assessee can become entitled to an allowance under section 37(1), he must satisfy the department of the purpose for which the amount is spent. In order to claim that an expenditure falls under section 37(1), the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee where the assessee failed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2160/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA dismissed the grounds raised on the issue. The relevant finding of the FAA reads as follows:- “6.2.1 The contention of the appellant is not acceptable on merit. Mere payment through banking channels and deduction of TDS does not give eligibility to the appellant for claiming deduction as business expenses. Provisions of section 37(1) are as under: “Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 [***][Certain words omitted by Act 32 of 1985, Section 11 (w.e.f. 1.4.1986).] and not being in the nature of capital expenditure of personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. From the reading of above section, it is clear that appellant had to prove that the claimed consultancy expenses were laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. However, the appellant has failed to do so. Further, when AO issued notices to the various parties to whom payments were made in form of consultancy expenses, parties either did not file reply or filed incomplete reply. Therefore, in the present case, since the business expediency of the expenses has not been established by the appellate, I am of the view that AO has rightly disallowed the consultancy expenses of Rs.63,96,717/-. Therefore, the disallowance made by AO is confirmed. Ground No.2 of the appeal is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee’s contentions before the IT authorities were that payments were made to the doctors through banking channels Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2160/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: and on such payments, necessary tax was deducted at source. Hence, expenditure cannot be disallowed. The assessee before ITAT has filed petition under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, for admission of additional evidence. The additional evidence that is sought to be admitted is the consultancy contract for services entered by the assessee with the various doctors. It is stated in the petition that the additional evidence now sought to be admitted took time for collating with all the supporting evidence and could not be filed before the AO and the FAA. It was stated that the assessment order was passed post Covid period and assessee had taken time to obtain the relevant information which is now being filed as additional evidences. The Ld.AR submitted that additional evidences now filed goes to the root of the issue to prove the payment made to the doctors are for the business purpose of the assessee and same is to be allowed as a deduction. Therefore, it was prayed that additional evidence now filed before the Tribunal may be taken on record for substantial cause and justice. 6. The Ld.DR strongly supported the orders of the AO and the FAA. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2160/Chny/2025 :- 5 -: 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that assessee had claimed consultancy expenses of Rs.66,50,917/-. The AO directed the assessee to furnish the details of such expenses with name, PAN and address of the payees. For verification, the AO issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act to the various persons to whom such payments were made. Since some of the payees did not respond to the notice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act within the due date of compliance as per the notice issued, the AO treated the sum of Rs.63,96,717/- as expenditure having no nexus to the business of the assessee. The FAA confirmed the disallowance made by the AO by observing that the business expediency of the expenses has not been established by the assessee. The assessee’s contention was that these payments were made through banking channels and requisite TDS were made on such payments. Apart from the above contentions, the assessee had not produced any evidence to justify that the expenses were incurred in the course of business and is for business expediency. 8. The assessee before the Tribunal has furnished additional evidences in the form of consultancy contract for services entered Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2160/Chny/2025 :- 6 -: with the doctors for which the impugned payments were made. These additional evidences now filed before the Tribunal goes to the root of the issue. It is stated that post Covid, to collate the supporting evidences the assessee had taken time and missed out in filling the same before the FAA. The additional evidences go to the root of issue, hence, for substantial cause and justice, we admit the additional evidence filed before us. Since additional evidences are admitted, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to examine the additional evidences filed before us and take a decision whether the expenditure incurred is an allowable deduction or not. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th November, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदȣश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 27th November, 2025 RSR Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2160/Chny/2025 :- 7 -: आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "