9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness expenditure. An employee who is getting small salary of ₹ 4,20,000/- per annum, it is difficult to believe that huge expenses would be spent for her visit Abroad. Assessee made only general explanation that she was associated with travelling business, but, it is not supported by any evidence or material on record. - Decided against assessee Addition on account of business promotion expenses - entitlement to deduction of the expenditure under section 37 - HELD THAT:- The assessee could explain the issue relating to expenses of ₹ 74,000/- only before A.O, however, no explanation has been given for remaining amount. It is an admitted fact that the entire expenses have been incurred for payment of restaurant bills. These c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee explained that Smt. Lalita Nijhawan w/o. Shri Sham Nijhawan was an employee of the company. He could not offer any explanation as to why she was required to accompany with the husband on business trip as an employee of the company. The A.O. accordingly disallowed ₹ 1,16,353/- under the Head Directors Travelling Expenses . The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that Smt. Lalita Nijhawan is major shareholder and an employee of the assessee company and wife of the Director Shri Sham Nijhawan. The assessee pleaded that she was required to visit out station many times. The Ld. CIT(A) however noted that no evidence/details regarding her business transacted by her during the foreign visit have been furnished. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Director of the assessee company, the same cannot be allowed as business expenditure. An employee who is getting small salary of ₹ 4,20,000/- per annum, it is difficult to believe that huge expenses would be spent for her visit Abroad. Assessee made only general explanation that she was associated with travelling business, but, it is not supported by any evidence or material on record. Ground No.1 of the appeal of Assessee is accordingly dismissed. 9. On Ground Nos. 2 and 3, assessee challenged the addition of ₹ 2,89,410/- on account of business promotion expenses. 10. The A.O. noted that assessee has an Amex Corporate Card for the use of only two Directors i.e., Shri Sham Nijhawan and his son Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount. It is an admitted fact that the entire expenses have been incurred for payment of restaurant bills. These clearly appear to be personal in nature which assessee has debited as business expenditure for which no bills/explanation or evidence have been furnished. Merely because auditor has not given any remarks that expenses are not personal in nature, would not entitle the assessee to claim deduction of the expenditure under section 37 of the I.T. Act. Burden is upon the assessee to prove that expenses have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The assessee further failed to prove the same. Therefore, Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the appeal of assessee has no merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
