9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 933 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of traveling expenses - CIT(A) confirmed disallowance - Held that - CIT(A) has not adverted to the submissions of the assessee as he had specifically submitted that the expenditure have been incurred on travelling of the executives for the business purpose of the assessee-company. There is no dispute with regard to proposition that deduction of expenditure is allowable if same is incurred for the business purpose. The assessee is required to demonstrate the business purpose. In the present case, as per assessee, the travelling expenditure was incurred on travelling of the executives of the company to study market condition and to contact prospective consumers for the purpose of trading in LNG. It is not disputed that such expenditure is allowable, however, the expenditure disallowed on the basis that the assessee failed to establish business nexus. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court the cases of CIT vs. Malayalam Planations Ltd.(1964 (4) TMI 9 - SUPREME Court ) and Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT (1979 (4) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court ), we are of the considered view that the ld.CIT((A) was not justified in rejecting the ground on the basis that there is nexus between the expenditure incurred and the business of the assessee-company. Therefore, we hereby set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order challenged 2. Disallowance of deduction for travelling expenses 3. Levy of interest under section 234C 4. Rejection of challenge to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) Issue 1: Validity of assessment order challenged: The appellant challenged the validity of the assessment order before the CIT(A), claiming it was passed without proper application of mind. The CIT(A) considered the challenge as general and not requiring adjudication. The appellant argued that the assessment order deserved cancellation due to lack of application of mind. The tribunal noted the grounds raised by the appellant but upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the appellant failed to establish the claim of expense for the purpose of business, leading to the disallowance. Issue 2: Disallowance of deduction for travelling expenses: The appellant contested the disallowance of travelling expenses amounting to Rs. 9,90,879, claiming they were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The appellant provided detailed submissions demonstrating the business nexus of the expenses, emphasizing the necessity of travel for trading in LNG. The tribunal found that the authorities below failed to consider the business nexus established by the appellant. Relying on judicial precedents, the tribunal concluded that the disallowance was unjustified and directed the AO to delete the addition. Issue 3: Levy of interest under section 234C: The appellant sought cancellation of the interest levy under section 234C, citing relevant decisions of the Gujarat High Court and the ITAT, Delhi Bench. The tribunal, however, did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue in the judgment. Issue 4: Rejection of challenge to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c): The appellant challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) as premature, arguing that concealment of income was not warranted in their case. The tribunal acknowledged the appellant's contentions but did not delve into the specifics of this issue in the judgment. In summary, the tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal regarding the disallowance of travelling expenses, emphasizing the business nexus established by the appellant. However, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the validity of the assessment order, without addressing the challenge to penalty proceedings or the levy of interest under section 234C in detail.
|
