Balchandra Parshuram Patil, Raigad V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1171/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7745 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASEEM SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Wrong claim
• Section: 234B; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO . 1171 /P U N/201 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 - 11 BHALCHANDRA PARSHURAM PATIL, FLAT NO. 203, OM SAI APARTMENT, URAN, PALLAVI HOSPITAL, URAN, RAIGAD 400702 PAN : AATPP4453H ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE , PANVEL / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : N O N E REVENUE BY : SHRI ASEEM SHARMA / DATE OF HEARING : 2 8 - 05 - 201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 - 0 5 - 201 8 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, THANE DATED 08 - 05 - 2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. 2 ITA NO . 1171/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010 - 11 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORD S ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE OF LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME THAT WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED FROM THE C OMPUTATION OF INCOME THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF CONVEYANCE EXPENSES RS.5,46,336/ - U/S. 10(14)(I) OF THE ACT. ON FURTHER EXAMINATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CONVEYANCE EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,73,168/ - , W HEREAS , THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DOUBLE THE AMOUNT AS EXEMPT U/S. 10(14)(I). THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CONVEYANCE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. RS.5,46,336/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE EMPLOYER OF LIC OF INDIA HAS NOT ALLOWED EXEMPTION OF THE AMOUNT RS. 2,73,168/ - GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON THIS AMOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 03 - 05 - 2012 PASSED U/S. 154 OF THE ACT DISALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION RS.5,46,336/ - U/S. 10(14)(I) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 154 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSE SSEE. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . A PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE SHOWS THAT THAT ON EARLIER DATES THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENT ED BY SHRI M.K. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE. ON THE LAST DAT E OF HEARING I.E. 15 - 03 - 2018 HE WITHDREW FROM THE CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, FRESH NOTICE VIDE RPAD WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 26 - 03 - 2018. THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD AVAILABLE ON FILE 3 ITA NO . 1171/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010 - 11 INDICATES THAT THE NO T ICE OF THE APPEAL WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE NEITHER ASSESSEE NOR ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE HAS COME TO REPRESENT THE CASE. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT KEEN TO PURSUE HIS APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. DR AND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD . 4. SHRI ASEEM SHARMA REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WRONG CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(14)( I) OF RS.5,46,336/ - . FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(14)(I) THE EMPLOYER HAS TO CERTIFY THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLLY, NECESSARILY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE. NO SUCH CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING SUCH EXEMPTION. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE EXCESS CLAIM. THE BREAKUP OF THE SALARY ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME SH OWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CONVEYANCE EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,73,168/ - AND NOT RS.5,46,336/ - AS HAS BEEN CLAIMED. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED OUT RIGHTLY. THE LD. DR PRAYED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 5. W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST DISALLOWING OF EXEMPTION RS.5,4 6,336/ - U/S. 10(14)(I) OF THE ACT. A PERUSAL OF DOCUMENTS ON RECORD SHOW THAT THE 4 ITA NO . 1171/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010 - 11 ASSESSEE IS WORKING AS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER IN LIC OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEES SALARY STATEMENT ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CONV EYANCE EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,73,168/ - ONLY. WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS.5,46,336/ - U/S. 10(14)(I) OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED ANY REASON FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(14)(I) OF DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL CONVEYANCE EXPENDITURE RECEIVED . THE PRIMARY REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(14)(I) BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH CERTIFICATE THAT THE CONVEYANCE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLLY, NECESSARILY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF DUTIES/OBLIGATIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME INDICATES THAT PRIMARY DUTY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER IS MARKET / DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESS OF THE LIC OF INDIA. THUS, PRIMARILY THE JOB OF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER IS FIELD JOB FOR WHICH LOT TRAVEL IS REQUIRED. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE OF RS.2,73,168/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT CLAIM OF CONVEYANCE EXPENSE IS SUPPORTED BY A CERTIFICATE FROM THE EMPLOYER, WHICH GIVES BIFURCATION OF SALARY PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. TA KING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE , WE RESTRICT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(14)(I) OF THE ACT TO RS.2,73,168/ - ONLY. 6. IN GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAIL ED CH ARGING OF INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. THE CHARGING OF INTEREST 5 ITA NO . 1171/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010 - 11 U/S. 234A, 234B AND 234C IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 5 IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TE RMS AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 30 TH DAY OF MAY, 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 30 TH MAY, 2018 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 2, THANE 4. / THE CIT - 2, THANE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE