9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 406,875 as unexplained cash credit. 2. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 2,97,600 and Rs. 2,50,000 on account of unsecured loans. 3. Disallowance of foreign travel expenses. 4. Disallowance of domestic travel expenses. Summary: 1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 406,875 as Unexplained Cash Credit: The Revenue disputed the deletion of Rs. 406,875 made by the A.O. as unexplained cash credit, arguing that additional evidence should not have been admitted by the ld.CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the ld.CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence u/s Rule 46A, noting that the assessee had sufficient cause for not producing the evidence earlier. The Tribunal found that the principal amount was received in earlier years, and no addition could be made u/s 68 in the present year. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's ground and allowed the assessee's appeal. 2. Confirmation of Addition of Rs. 2,97,600 and Rs. 2,50,000 on Account of Unsecured Loans: The assessee disputed the confirmation of additions of Rs. 2,97,600 and Rs. 2,50,000 on account of unsecured loans from Mr. Prabjeer Mighani and Mr. Venkat Raman, respectively. The Tribunal noted that the loans were opening balances from previous years and upheld the ld.CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 406,875 but confirmed the additions of Rs. 2,97,600 and Rs. 2,50,000 due to lack of evidence on the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors. 3. Disallowance of Foreign Travel Expenses: The assessee incurred Rs. 2,84,344 on foreign travel, which the A.O. disallowed entirely, arguing that the nature of the assessee's business did not require foreign travel. The ld.CIT(A) allowed 50% of the expenses, accepting that the visit to Bangkok was for business purposes but found the total amount excessive. The Tribunal upheld the ld.CIT(A)'s decision, noting inconsistencies in the evidence provided and the unexplained visit to Hong Kong. The Tribunal found no basis for further allowance beyond the 50% already granted. 4. Disallowance of Domestic Travel Expenses: The assessee incurred Rs. 36,012 on domestic travel, which the A.O. disallowed entirely. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, and the Tribunal upheld the decision, noting that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the expenses were for business purposes. Conclusion: The appeal by the assessee was partly allowed, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the admission of additional evidence and the partial allowance of foreign travel expenses but confirmed the disallowance of domestic travel expenses and the additions on account of unsecured loans.
|
