9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 768 - AT - Income TaxAddition of the fixed conveyance allowance - disallowance on account of non-availability of the supporting evidences - HELD THAT - As there was no representation from the side of the learned AR for the assessee qua the disallowances made by the authorities below against the fixed conveyance allowance received by the assessee from LIC, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the authorities below. Indeed, the onus lies on the assessee to furnish the details of the expenses incurred by him against the fixed conveyance allowance received from LIC. Hence, in the absence of the documentary evidence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Unexplained household expenses - HELD THAT - We note that the AO has made the addition on the basis of the guesswork. In fact, the AO has not brought anything on record about the actual expenses incurred by the assessee with respect to the telephone, mobile, electricity, education of his daughter etc. it is the settled law that there cannot be any addition based on guess work despite how strong the guesswork is. In the case on hand, the reasoning given by the AO for making the impugned addition appears to be strong and reasonable but the same is not supported on the basis of documentary evidence. Therefore we are of the view that no such addition is warranted in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Profit with respect to share trading activities - HELD THAT - AR at the time of hearing has not made any representation in the written submission filed before us. As there was no representation from the side of the learned AR for the assessee qua the addition made by the authorities below against the share trading transactions, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the authorities below. Indeed, the onus lies on the assessee to furnish the details of the profit earned by him against the share trading transactions. Hence, in the absence of the documentary evidence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Disallowance for the expenditures incurred against the incentive bonus - HELD THAT - AR at the time of hearing has not made any submission in the written submission filed before us. As there was no representation from the side of the learned AR for the assessee qua the disallowances made by the authorities below against the incentive bonus received by the assessee from LIC, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the authorities below. We also note that there is no provision under the Act authorizing the assessee to claim the deduction against the incentive bonus which is part of the salary as provided under section 17 of the Act. Deduction u/s 80 G for the amount of donation paid to Shri Lalpur Gau Rakshak Mandal for ₹3000.00 only - same was disallowed by the AO in the absence of any documentary evidence - HELD THAT - The assessee has not preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) against the non-disallowance of deduction for the donation paid under section 80G of the Act. However, the assessee in the ground of appeal has raised the issue before us 1st time. This is also pertinent to note that the assessee or his authorized representative has not made any representation against the ground of appeal raised by the assessee as discussed above. Thus, in the absence of any representation the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of fixed conveyance allowance. 2. Addition on account of unexplained household expenses. 3. Addition of profit from trading in shares. 4. Disallowance of expenditure out of incentive bonus. 5. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80G. 6. General grounds and procedural issues. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Fixed Conveyance Allowance: The assessee, a development officer with LIC, claimed a fixed conveyance allowance of ?40,060 as a deduction under section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the expenses incurred. The AO disallowed 70% of the allowance, amounting to ?28,042, due to the lack of evidence. The CIT(A) upheld this decision. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities, reiterating that the onus of proof lay on the assessee. Consequently, the ground of appeal was dismissed. 2. Addition on Account of Unexplained Household Expenses: The AO observed a discrepancy between the cash outflow and the withdrawals from the assessee's bank account, leading to an addition of ?1,00,000 for unexplained household expenses. The CIT(A) reduced this addition to ?50,000, considering possible past savings. The Tribunal noted that the AO's addition was based on guesswork without tangible evidence and thus concluded that no addition was warranted. This ground of appeal was allowed. 3. Addition of Profit from Trading in Shares: The assessee did not disclose certain share trading transactions in his income tax return. Upon inquiry, the AO found discrepancies in the assessee's reported profits and recalculated the profit from share trading activities to be ?77,352. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions, emphasizing the absence of documentary evidence from the assessee. The ground of appeal was dismissed. 4. Disallowance of Expenditure Out of Incentive Bonus: The assessee claimed a deduction of ?1,39,217 against an incentive bonus of ?4,64,056 received from LIC, citing expenses incurred as a development officer. The AO disallowed this deduction, treating the incentive bonus as part of the salary under section 17 of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in T.K. Ginarajan vs. CIT, which clarified that incentive bonuses are taxable as salary and not eligible for deductions beyond those specified under section 16. Consequently, the ground of appeal was dismissed. 5. Disallowance of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80G: The assessee claimed a deduction of ?3,000 under section 80G for a donation to Shri Lalpur Gau Rakshak Mandal, which the AO disallowed due to the absence of documentary evidence. The assessee did not appeal this disallowance before the CIT(A) but raised it for the first time before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed this ground due to the lack of representation and supporting evidence. 6. General Grounds and Procedural Issues: The remaining grounds (7 to 10) raised by the assessee were general in nature and did not require separate adjudication. Hence, these grounds were dismissed. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal providing relief on the issue of unexplained household expenses while dismissing the other grounds. The order was pronounced on 10/12/2019 at Ahmedabad.
|
