2015 (10) TMI 1441 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of traveling and conveyance expenses - Held that - Tribunal has been called upon to give its own reasons for affirming or rejecting the reasoning given by the AO as well as the CIT(A). We afforded an opportunity to the assessee to co-relate the trips of these three directors to Malaysia and UK with the business purpose. Except for filing a tour report of one of the directors, which is an simply an internal evidence, the ld. AR could not place on record any external evidence to suggest that any business meetings were held in Malaysia or UK, which were attended by these three directors. On being called upon to file any correspondence with the Japanese company to support the assessee s contention that meetings were organized in Malaysia and UK, the ld. AR fairly conceded that no such evidence was available. This shows that except for a bald statement that the business meetings were organized by the Japanese company in Malaysia and UK, there is no evidence worth the name to support such a claim. When the position is such, the natural conclusion which follows is that there is no positive evidence to the effect that these foreign trips were undertaken by the three directors for any business purpose. Under such circumstances, the view taken by the authorities below cannot be disturbed. We, therefore, countenance the impugned order in sustaining the disallowance of ₹ 22.47 lac. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of travelling and conveyance expenses amounting to Rs. 22,47,565 by the Tribunal.

Analysis:

The appeal was filed by the assessee against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 1999-2000. The Hon'ble High Court set aside the Tribunal order concerning the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 22,47,565 out of travelling and conveyance expenses. The AO noted that a significant part of the travelling expenses was related to visits by certain directors to Malaysia and UK, questioning the business connection of these trips. The Tribunal initially deleted the disallowance, but the High Court criticized the lack of reasoning provided by the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for detailed justifications for accepting the assessee's version. The Tribunal was directed to give its own reasons for affirming or rejecting the AO and CIT(A)'s reasoning.

Upon further examination, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate the business purpose of the directors' trips to Malaysia and UK. The absence of concrete evidence supporting business meetings or correspondence with the Japanese company led to the conclusion that the foreign trips lacked a legitimate business purpose. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 22.47 lakh, as there was insufficient proof to support the claim of business-related travel expenses.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of travelling and conveyance expenses amounting to Rs. 22,47,565, as the assessee could not provide substantial evidence to establish the business nature of the directors' trips to Malaysia and UK. The decision was based on the lack of verifiable documentation supporting the claim of business-related expenditure, leading to the rejection of the appeal by the assessee.

This detailed analysis highlights the critical aspects of the judgment, focusing on the lack of evidence supporting the business purpose of the contested expenses and the Tribunal's subsequent decision to uphold the disallowance based on the absence of substantial proof.