9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 470 - AT - Income TaxSpecial allowance or benefit, not being in the nature of a perquisite - Exemption u/s 10(14) - expenditure incurred out of incentive bonus - claim rejected by the AO on the ground that it was not allowable under section 10(14) of the Act, since the assessee has assessed under the head salary - Held that - It cannot be disputed that as a Development Officer of LIC, main task is to develop business for the LIC. For that, the DO has to undertake various functions. No details or supporting evidence has been furnished by the assessee before us to support its claim. Atleast the assessee should have filed a certificate from the LIC for determining expenses possibly to be incurred by him for the purpose of procuring LIC business and earning incentive bonus. No such certificate has been submitted and any details to support its case. Therefore, we remit this issue back to the file of the ld.AO to decide the claim of the assessee in view of the CBDT circular dated 19.12.1996 and decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Nitin T. Bhuptani 2018 (4) TMI 1610 - ITAT RAJKOT . - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ?3,30,893/- made by the AO under section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Addition of ?3,30,893/- under Section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The appeal concerns the assessee, a Development Officer with LIC, who filed a return declaring a total income of ?13,81,040/-, which included ?11,02,977/- as incentive bonus from LIC. During scrutiny, the AO noticed the assessee claimed a 30% deduction from the incentive bonus, which was disallowed by the AO on the grounds that the incentive bonus was neither an allowance nor a reimbursement of expenses. The AO based his decision on a certificate from LIC and a CBDT Circular dated 13.5.2009, and treated the incentive bonus as part of salary, thus disallowing the deduction. In the appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee's claim was again rejected. The assessee then approached the Tribunal, arguing that the claim was allowable as per a CBDT Circular dated 19.12.1996 and guidelines from the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Dhiren Chemicals Industries. The assessee also cited a similar issue decided by the Tribunal in the case of Atul Amrutilal Mithanai Vs. ITO, where the Tribunal had remitted the issue back to the AO for reconsideration. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and referred to its decision in the case of Nitin T. Bhuptani, where it had taken cognizance of LIC's scheme for Senior Business Associates (SBAs). The scheme required SBAs to maintain business at their premises, with LIC reimbursing certain expenditures. The Tribunal noted that the duties of a Development Officer included various functions that could incur expenses necessarily and exclusively for the performance of their duties. However, the assessee did not provide sufficient details or supporting evidence to substantiate the claim. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO to reconsider the claim in light of the CBDT circular dated 19.12.1996 and the Tribunal's decision in the case of Nitin T. Bhuptani. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to determine the expenses possibly incurred by the assessee for procuring LIC business and earning the incentive bonus, with proper supporting evidence. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the issue back to the AO for reconsideration, directing the AO to evaluate the claim based on the CBDT circular and previous Tribunal decisions, with the requirement for the assessee to provide supporting evidence for the claimed expenses.
|
