2016 (7) TMI 241 - AT - Income Tax

Addition being the difference in the FD amount as unexplained income from other sources - CIT(A) deleted the addition calling for information u/s 133(6) of the Act from the bank and found that the difference worked out by the Assessing Officer in the FD was reconciled - when the CIT(A) called for information by himself from State Bank of India, whether such information has to be treated as additional evidence filed by the assessee? - Held that - This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the powers of the CIT(A) are coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer, therefore, the CIT(A) can himself call for the material and examine the same without any assistance from the Assessing Officer. Since the CIT(A) himself called for the records and examined the same, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is no violation of Rule 46A as alleged by the ld. DR. Accordingly, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is confirmed. - Decided against revenue Disallowance of travelling expenses - AO disallowed a sum of 1 lakh on the ground that the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards foreign travel cannot be for earning the professional income admitted by the assessee due to his old age - Held that - The fact that the assessee is a neuro-physician is not in dispute. Being a practicing neuro-physician, the assessee has to update his knowledge in the field in which he is practicing. Therefore, age of the assessee is not a criteria for updating the knowledge. The fact that the assessee travelled out of the country is not in dispute. The Assessing Officer himself allowed a part of the expenditure, therefore, it is not known why the remaining part of 1 lakh cannot be treated as expenditure for earning the professional income This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that a practicing professional has to update his knowledge irrespective of his age, therefore, the expenditure towards foreign travel has to be allowed in toto. The age of the assessee cannot be a determinative factor for restricting the foreign travel expenses. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of 1 lakh is deleted.- Decided against revenue Disallowance of depreciation on motor car - Held that - It is not in dispute that the assessee himself added back 25% of the expenditure as personal in nature. When the assessee himself claimed the expenditure to the extent of 25% as personal in nature, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that depreciation on motor car to the extent of 25% is also only for personal purpose. Therefore, it cannot be allowed while computing the professional income. In view of the above, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is confirmed.- Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of Rule 46A by CIT(A) in admitting additional evidence.
2. Disallowance of travelling expenses for foreign travel.
3. Disallowance of depreciation on motor car.

Issue 1: Violation of Rule 46A by CIT(A) in admitting additional evidence:
The appeal and cross objection were against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order for the assessment year 2011-12. The Departmental Representative argued that the CIT(A) deleted an addition without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine additional evidence from the State Bank of India, violating Rule 46A. The Representative for the assessee contended that no additional evidence was filed, and when the CIT(A) directly obtained information from the bank, there was no need to provide an opportunity to the Assessing Officer. The ITAT Chennai held that when the CIT(A) procured information independently, it did not amount to additional evidence filed by the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) has the authority to call for and examine material without assistance from the Assessing Officer, thus ruling out any Rule 46A violation.

Issue 2: Disallowance of travelling expenses for foreign travel:
The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the assessee's claimed foreign travel expenses, arguing that being aged, the travel was not for earning professional income. The assessee, a neuro-physician, justified the expenses as necessary for updating medical knowledge. The ITAT Chennai noted that age should not restrict a professional from updating expertise, especially in the medical field. As the Assessing Officer allowed a part of the expenses, the Tribunal found no valid reason to disallow the remaining amount, emphasizing that professional obligations necessitate continuous learning. Consequently, the disallowance of 1 lakh towards foreign travel expenses was overturned.

Issue 3: Disallowance of depreciation on motor car:
The Assessing Officer disallowed 25% of the depreciation on the motor car, alleging personal usage. The assessee claimed the car was solely used for professional activities. However, the ITAT Chennai observed that since the assessee himself classified 25% of expenses as personal, the same percentage of depreciation was considered for personal use. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of 25% depreciation on the motor car, concurring with the CIT(A)'s decision. Ultimately, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross objection was partly allowed.

In summary, the ITAT Chennai addressed the issues of Rule 46A violation, disallowance of travelling expenses for foreign travel, and disallowance of depreciation on a motor car in a detailed manner, providing a comprehensive analysis and ruling on each matter effectively.