Shri Sudha Nagory , Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 , Kanpur

ITA 104/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 10423714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K JAIN SHRI SWARAN SINGH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.104/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 SMT. SUDHA NAGORY, 7/197, MOTI SADAN, SWAROOP NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:ABEPN1435D VS. DY.C.I.T. - 4, RANGE - IV, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI S. K. JAIN, ADVOCATE SHRI SWARAN SINGH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 06/02/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 1 /04/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I, KANPUR DATED 31/10/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) - L, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW & ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,00,000/ - BEING THE ALLEGED PERQUISITE ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVEL TO DELHI BY THE APPELLANT AS DIRECTOR OF M/S THE INDIA THERMIT CORPORATION LTD. IN TERMS OF PAR A 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER READ WITH PARA 5.2 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) (UNDER APPEAL). 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000 / - MADE BY THE LD. A.O. IN TERMS OF PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER READ W ITH PARA 6.2 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) (UNDER APPEAL). 2 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW & ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.18,000/ - OUT OF RS . 30,000/ - DISALLOWED BY THE LD. A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE & MOBILE EXPENSES. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT STATED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 ,2 & 3 HERE ABOVE, IS INSUPPORTABLE IN LAW & ON FACTS & IS ALSO CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE & EQUITY. 5. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TH E DISALLOWANCES SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED & IN ANY CASE MUCH TOO HIGH & EXCESSIVE. 6. THAT ANY OTHER RELIEF O R RELIEFS AS YOUR HONOUR(S) MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, BE GRANTED. 7. YOUR HUMBLE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, WITHDRAW OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE HEARING. 3. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME CONTENTIONS, WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) BEING PARA NO. 5.2, 6.2 AND 7.2 ARE REPRODUC ED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: 5.2 EVEN ASSUMING FOR A MOMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN TRAVELLING AS A DIRECTO R IN THAT CASE, THE TRAVELLING EXPENSES OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN BORNE BY THE COMPANY FOR WHICH SHE HAD UNDERTAKEN THESE TRAVEL(S). IN ANY CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT SUCH EXPENSES WERE RELATED TO HER BUSINESS/PROFESSION. ACTION OF THE A .O. IS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 3 6.2 AFTER DEDUCTING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON FURNITURE, JEWELLERY ETC ., THE NET WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE COMES TO ONLY RS .80,340/ - . FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD TRAVELLED ABROAD - 2 TIMES, CUMULATIVELY FOR MORE THAN 25 DAYS. HER TOTAL WITHDRAWAL ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL INCLUDING (AIR TICKETS) HAS BEEN SHOWN ONLY RS.2, 06, 469/ - IN TH IS VIEW FOR THE MATTER, THE A .O. WAS RIGHT IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS .1 ,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWALS. THE ADDITION IS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED . 7.2 THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF MEDICAL EXPENDITURE IS DELETED SINCE IT WAS ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX AS PE RQUISITES IN THE APPELLANTS HAND . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN USING PHONE/MOBILE AT COMPANY'S EXPENSES; THE NATURE OF USE IS SUCH THAT PERSONAL ELEMENT CANNOT BE RULED OUT, THE ESTIMATE OF RS .30,000/ - BY THE A.O, IS RESTRICTED TO RS . 18,000/ - (I.E. 1,500 / - PER MONTH) . 5.1 FROM THE ABOVE THREE PARAS, WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE EXPENSES DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN TRAVELLING EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF TRAVELLING OF THE DIRECTOR TO DELHI WERE RELATED TO ASSESSEES BUSINESS/PROFESSION. SIMILARLY, REGARDING THE SECOND ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWALS FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS UNDERTAKEN FOREIGN TOUR ON TWO OCCASIONS FOR MORE THAN 25 DAYS AND HER TOTAL WITHDRAWAL ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVELLING INCLUDING AIR TICKET HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.2,06,469/ - . UNDER THESE FACTS, HE CONFIRMED THESE TWO ADDITIONS. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THESE TWO ISSUES. HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 6. REGARDING THE THIRD ISSUE, DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA NO. 7.2 OF HIS ORDER, WE FIND THAT HE HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.18,000/ - AS AGAINST RS.30,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE DO NOT 4 FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BECAUSE PERSONAL USE OF PHONE / MOBILE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALSO REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SU NIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 1 /04/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR