2012 (6) TMI 115 - HC - Income Tax

Traveling expenses incurred on foreign travel - Revenue dis-allowed expenditure on ground that same was not incurred for business purpose - Held that - If there is a foreign travel in connection with the business, merely because in the said foreign travel, no business could be transacted or the foreign travel did not result in bagging any contract is not the determinative factor. It is not also necessary that the expenditure could be claimed by the assessee only if person sent was a Director or an employee. Board s resolution produced indicate that travel had been undertaken solely for the purpose of the assessee‟s business - expenditure allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. Requirement of giving a notice of hearing before charging of the interest u/s 217 - Held that - Issuance of show cause notice is not a condition precedent before charging interest u/s 217 as the requirement of notice was satisfied during the assessment proceedings itself.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of various expenses by the Assessing Officer.
2. Review of disallowance of payment made to Mr. Sunil Kumar.
3. Disallowance of foreign travel expenses of Mr. Pawan Goel.
4. Deletion of interest under Section 217 of the Income Tax Act.

Issue No. (a):
The High Court considered the disallowance of foreign travel expenses of Mr. Pawan Goel. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses, stating they were not for business purposes. The CIT (A) upheld this decision, emphasizing that Mr. Pawan Goel was not directly related to the business. The Tribunal also affirmed this finding, stating there was no established nexus between the expenses and the business. However, the Court disagreed, citing the Supreme Court's view that if a nexus between the expenditure and the business purpose is established, the Revenue cannot question the reasonableness of the expenditure. The Court found the Tribunal's decision erroneous and allowed the deduction of the travel expenses, emphasizing the importance of proving the business-related purpose of the expenses.

Issue No. (b):
Regarding the deletion of interest under Section 217 of the Act, the Court examined whether a notice of hearing was required before levying the interest. The Department argued that no separate notice was necessary as interest is not a penalty. The Court referred to relevant case laws and Section 217, concluding that a notice of hearing was not mandatory for charging interest. The Court also granted the assessee relief by waiving interest on deleted additions, including the allowed travel expenses. Consequently, the Court held that no separate notice for levying interest was needed as the assessment proceedings fulfilled the notice requirement. The review petition was allowed to the extent of granting relief on interest under Section 217 of the Act.