Gopilal Khatri, Gwalior V. I.T.O., Ward- 2(2), Gwalior

ITA 398/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0422 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KK MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANUJ SHARMA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Salary income; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 10(14); 143(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 398/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2001-02 GOPILAL KHATRI, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, S/O SHRI P.R. KHATRI, WARD 2(2), GWALIOR. J-18, CITY CENTRE NO. 1, GWALIOR. (PAN: ADJPK 8300 R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SRI RAJENDRA SHARMA & MANUJ SHARM A, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. MISHRA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 22.04.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 03.05.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR DATED 07.10.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 01-02. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER DISMISSED IN DEFAULT BY ORDER DATED 30.04.2012. THE ASSESSEE MOVED M.A. NO. 33/AGRA/2012 EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THE MA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED AND EARLIER ORDER WAS RECALLED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RE- FIXED FOR HEARING ON MERITS. ITA NO.398/AGRA/2011 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. THE ASSESSEE ON GROUND NO. 1 CHALLENGED THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147/148 OF THE IT AC T. THE ASSESSEE IS A DEVELOPMENT OFFICER IN LIC. AS PER HIS RETURN FILED ON 31.07.2001, DECLARING INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCE S, WHICH HAS BEEN PROCESSED ON RETURNED INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED STANDA RD DEDUCTION OF RS.20,000/-. FURTHER, ON INCENTIVE BONUS OF RS.2,92,655/-, EXPEN SES OF RS.1,17,062/- HAS ALSO BEEN CLAIMED. SINCE AS PER DECISION OF JURISDICTION AL M.P. HIGH COURT GIVEN IN CASE OF CIT VS. A.K. GHOSH & OTHERS, 263 ITR 536, THE AS SESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF INCENTIVE BONUS EARNED DURIN G THE YEAR, THEREFORE, NOTICE U/S. 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 19.07.2005 BY THE A.O. BY RE CORDING THE REASONS AS UNDER : ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2001-02 DE CLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,17,210/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED O N 14.02.2003 GRANTING A REFUND OF RS.58,721/- TO ASSESSEE. PERUS AL OF RETURNS REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DEVELOPMENT OFFICER IN LIC WHEREFROM HE HAS RECEIVED AN INCENTIVE BONUS AMOUNTING RS.2,92,6 55/-. HOWEVER, OUT OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS.2,92,655/- ASSESSEE HAS CL AIMED EXPENSES AMOUNTING RS.1,42,333/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS DEVE LOPMENT OFFICER, HENCE IN VIEW OF M.P. HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF A.K. GHOSH ;VS. CIT REPORTED IN 263 ITR 536, DEDUCTION A VAILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ALLOWABLE. SIMILARLY ASSESSEES SALARY INCOME IS ABOVE RS.5 L AKHS INCLUDING INCENTIVE BONUS. STANDARD DEDUCTION AVAIL ED BY ASSESSEE ITA NO.398/AGRA/2011 3 AMOUNTING RS.20,000/- IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF S ECTION 16(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. I HAVE, THEREFORE, REASON TO BELIEVE THAT BY REASO N OF OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE BY NOT DISCL OSING THE FULL AND TRUE FACTS OF THE CASE, INCOME OF ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED R S.1,62,333/-. ISSUE THEREFORE NOTICE U/S. 148. 4.1 THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE REOPENING OF ASSES SMENT. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 2.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 2.2. APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS REGARDING OBJECTION TO ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 BEING BASED ON A DECISION OF A HIGH COURT RENDERED SUBSEQUENTLY AND NOT PERTAINING TO THE ASSTT. YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED CAREFULLY. INFORMATION RECEIVE D BY THE A.O. SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AS TO LAW HAV ING A BEARING ON THE ASSESSMENT AND INDICATING ITS ESCAPEMENT WILL J USTIFY INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIO US COURTS THAT SUBSEQUENT RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION, DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT, DECISIONS OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAN BE RELIED UPON AS CONSTITUTING INFORMATION LEADING THE AO TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. FURTHER , THE BAR OF CHANGE OF OPINION CANNOT ARISE WHERE THERE HAVE EAR LIER BEEN NO PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT IN Q UESTION [RAJ BAHADUR BHATNAGAR VS. CIT (1995) 98 ITR 382 (ALL.). THE QUESTION OF CHANGE OF OPINION WOULD ARISE ONLY WHEN AN OPINION HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPRESSED ON MATERIALS ON RECORD. IN THE APPELLANT S CASE RETURN FILED BY HIM HAS BEEN PROCESSED ONLY AND NO ORDER U/S. 14 3(3)/147 BEEN MADE. ON THE BASIS OF SIMILAR FACTS, WHERE A DEVELO PMENT OFFICER OF LIC HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON INCENTIVE BONUS AND AD DITIONAL CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE AND THE CONCERNED AO HAS INITI ATED PROCEEDINGS FOR REASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF DECISI ON OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF B.M. PARMAR, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LIC VS. CIT (1999) 235 ITR 679 (P&H), HOLD ING THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS TO BE GOVERNED BY THE HEAD SALAR Y, REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY HONBLE PUNJAB & HA RYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF RAMESH CHANDER SINGLA VS. CIT(APPE ALS) AND ANOTHER (2011) 330 ITR 288 (P&H). IN THE CASE MENTI ONED ABOVE, THE ITA NO.398/AGRA/2011 4 HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE DECISION OF JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON THE AO AND IS THE LAW FOR THE A O WORKING UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF P&H. IT WAS THIS KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION WHICH LEAD TO THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF OF THE AO THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNDER ASSESSED AND SO AS PER EXPL ANATION 2(C)(I) OF SEC. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, THE INCOME OF THE APPELLA NT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT REOPENED BY THE AO AN D THE ADDITIONS MADE BY FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 READ WITH S ECTION 143(3) WAS VALID AND LEGAL. FURTHER, ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 1 47 COULD NOT BE CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT WAS NOT MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, (2011) 330 ITR 288 AND ON THE BASIS OF FACTS, THIS GROUND OF APPELLANT IS, HEREBY DISMI SSED. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE, ORIGINAL RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) AND THE ASSESSEE DECLARED ALL THE PARTICULARS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ALL THE PARTICULARS IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION I S NOT JUSTIFIED. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : (I). ACIT VS. ICICI SECURITIES, 253 CTR 305 (SC) (II). DINESH KUMAR GORDHANDAS VS. CIT, 140 ITR 211 (M.P.) (III). STAR AUTOMOBILES VS. ITO, 178 ITR 613 (MP) (IV). CIT VS. CORPORATION BANK LTD., 254 ITR 791 ( SC) (V). CIT VS. RAM LAL MANOHAR LAL, 158 ITR 9 (DEL.) (VI). ADDL. CIT VS. GANESHI LAL LAL CHAND, 154 ITR 275 (RAJ.). THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE REASONS RE PRODUCED ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OUT OF INCENTIVE BON US IN A SUM OF RS.1,17,062/-. ITA NO.398/AGRA/2011 5 HONBLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. A.K. GHOSH (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT INCENTIVE BONUS RECEIVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER , LIC CONSTITUTES SALARY AND NO DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE. THE SAID DECISION WAS RE NDERED ON 05.05.2003. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING WERE RECORDED ON 19.07.2005. THE REASONS ARE, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WHICH IS BINDING ON THE AO. HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DE VI MARINE FOOD EXPORTS PVT. LTD., 254 ITR 484 HELD THAT THE DECISION OF HIGH CO URT CONSTITUTES INFORMATION. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE REOPENI NG WAS DONE WITHIN TIME ALLOWED BY LAW. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO SECTION 16(1) OF THE IT ACT, WHICH WAS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, DEDUCTION OF RS.20,00 0/- WOULD BE ALLOWED AS STANDARD DEDUCTION IF THE SALARY DOES NOT EXCEED FI VE LAKHS OF RUPEES. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, AS PER SALARY CE RTIFICATE ALSO, TOTAL SALARY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THAN RS.5,00,000/-. THEREFORE, ST ANDARD DEDUCTION OF RS.20,000/- WAS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S. 16(1) OF THE IT ACT. THE AO IN THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT HAS TAKEN BOTH THESE GROUND S AND WAS HAVING REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. SINCE I N THIS CASE, NO ORDER U/S. 143(3) WAS PASSED EARLIER, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY CHANGE OF OPINION ON THE PART OF THE AO BECAUSE THE RETURN WAS MERELY PROCES SED U/S. 143(1) OF THE IT ACT. NO OPINION HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE AO ON MERITS. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF RAMESH ITA NO.398/AGRA/2011 6 CHANDER SINGLA VS. CIT, 330 ITR 288 SQUARELY APPLY IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DECISION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE CLEAR LY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN THE MATTER. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND IS ACCORDIN GLY DISMISSED. 7. ON GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDI TION OF RS.1,78,603/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED FOR CONVEYANCE ALLOWAN CE AND ADDL. CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 10(1 4) OF THE IT ACT BEFORE THE AO, WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE EXTENT OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCU RRED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. AS SU CH, CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE AS ALREADY CLAIMED AT RS. 61,433/- IS ALLOWED. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT CONVEYANCE EXPENSES OF RS.2,03,766/- HAVE BEEN EXPENDED OUT OF WHICH RS.61,433/- PERTAINS TO NORMAL DUTIES WHEREAS BALAN CE OF RS.1,42,333/- HAS BEEN INCURRED TO EARN THE DECLARED INCENTIVE BONUS. LIC HAS ADMITTED AND PAID CONVEYANCE EXPENSES OF RS.1,78,495/- (RS.61,433/- + 1,17,062/-). AS PER DECISION IN THE CASE OF A.K. GHOSH (SUPRA), THE CONVEYANCE A ND ADDITIONAL CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE IS EXEMPT U/S. 10(14) OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DID NOT ITA NO.398/AGRA/2011 7 ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE SALARY CERTIFICATE, THE LIC HAS MENTIONED THAT AMOUNT OF RS.61,433/- HAS BEEN P AID TO THE ASSESSEE TO MEET OUT THE EXPENSES WHOLLY, NECESSARILY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT DUTIES AND HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR THAT PURPOSE AND AS SUCH, THE SAME ARE EXEMPT U/S. 10(14) OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT, HOWEVER, WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE DEC LARED INCOME FROM SALARY AND ALLOWANCES AT RS.3,42,650/- WHEREAS INCENTIVE BONUS OF RS.2,92,655/- HAS BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS.1,42,333/- TO EARN THE INCENTIVE BONUS AND PA RT OF THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED IN A SUM OF RS.25,271/- IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF KER ALA HGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUDHAKARAN NAIR. SINCE INCENTIVE BONUS IS P ART OF SALARY AS PER DECISION OF M.P. HIGH COURT IN CASE OF A.K. GHOSH (SUPRA), THER EFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER FOUND TH AT EXEMPTION U/S. 10(14) IN RESPECT OF CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE AND ADDITIONAL CONV EYANCE ALLOWANCE HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED OF RS.61,433/- AS PER SALARY CERTIFICA TE AND, THEREFORE, NO DEDUCTION IS ADMISSIBLE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND W AS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RE LIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.398/AGRA/2011 8 9. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION. ITAT, AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF DINESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 77/AGRA/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 23.08.2012, CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(14) OF THE IT ACT, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA NO. 5 AND 5.1 OF THE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE. SECTION 10(14)(I) OF THE IT ACT PROVIDES AS UNDER : (14) (I) ANY SUCH SPECIAL ALLOWANCE OR BENEFIT, N OT BEING IN THE NATURE OF A PERQUISITE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CL AUSE (2) OF SECTION 17, SPECIFICALLY GRANTED TO MEET EXPENSES W HOLLY, NECESSARILY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED IN THE PERFORM ANCE OF THE DUTIES OF AN OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT OF PROFIT AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH EXPENSES AR E ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR THAT PURPOSE. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODU CED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE EXPENSES WHOL LY, NECESSARILY AND EXCLUSIVELY WERE INCURRED ON CONVEYANCE IN PERFORMA NCE OF DUTIES OF AN OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 10(14)(I) OF THE A CT. THE LD. CIT(A) VERY ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LIC OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA, 260 ITR 41 RIGH TLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION IF THE AMO UNTS WERE ACTUALLY INCURRED IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES. HOWEVER, NO EVID ENCES WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO SATISFY T HE CONDITIONS OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS AND EVEN NO CERTIFICATE FROM THE E MPLOYER, I.E., LIC, WAS FURNISHED TO CERTIFY IF THE ASSESSEE SPENT ANY AMOUNT IN ITA NO.398/AGRA/2011 9 PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES. THEREFORE, IT WAS VERY C LEAR ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE T HAT ANY EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEES COUNSEL RELIED UPON UNREPORTED DECISION OF AGRA BENCH IN TH E CASE OF ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA (SUPRA) IN WHICH NO REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AS TO WHY DEDUCTION WAS RESTRICTED TO 20% ON THE ISSUE. I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE E NTITLED FOR ANY DEDUCTION ON THIS ISSUE. FURTHER, THE HONBLE ALLAH ABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMESH CHAND AGARWAL , 286 ITR 566 HELD INCENTIVE BONUS RECEIVED BY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER OF LIC FORMS PART OF SALARY AND EXPENDITURE INCURRED OVER AND AB OVE STANDARD DEDUCTION UNDER S. 16(I) FOR EARNING THAT INCOME IS NOT ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. 5.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ME RIT IN GROUND NO. 1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9.1 IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT P RODUCE ANY VOUCHERS FOR CLAIMING THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF CONVEYANCE AND ADDL. CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCES. ACCORDING TO THE SALARY CERTIFICATE, LI C HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.61,433/- HAS BEEN PAID TO THE EMPL OYEE TO MEET THE EXPENSES WHOLLY, NECESSARILY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR PE RFORMING THE DEVELOPMENT DUTIES AND HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY INCURRED WHOLLY FOR T HAT PURPOSE AND IS EXEMPT U/S. 10(14) OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF RS.1,17,062/- FOR EARNING INCENTIVE BONUS. AS PER DECISION IN THE CASE OF A.K. GHOSH (SUPRA), SIN CE THE INCENTIVE BONUS IS PART OF THE SALARY, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER DEDUCTION IS PERM ISSIBLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ITA NO.398/AGRA/2011 10 PRODUCED ANY OTHER EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO AND LD. C IT(A) TO PROVE NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF RS.10(14) THAT THE AMOUNT NOW CLAIME D AS DEDUCTION WAS ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR THAT PURPOSE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EV IDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF SEC. 10(14)(I) OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS, THEREF ORE, JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 10. ON GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED STANDARD D EDUCTION OF RS.20,000/- U/S. 16(1) OF THE IT ACT. THE CLAIM OF STANDARD DEDUCTIO N WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE AO BECAUSE THE SALARY EXCEEDED TO RS.5,00,000/-. THE A SSESSEE DID NOT RAISE ANY GROUND BEFORE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THE TOTAL SALAR Y OF ASSESSEE AS PER SALARY CERTIFICATE IS MORE THAN RS.5,00,000/-, THEREFORE, STANDARD DEDUCTION U/S. 16(1) AS WAS APPLICABLE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THIS GROUND WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. ITA NO.398/AGRA/2011 11 11. ON GROUND NO.4, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED CHARGIN G OF INTEREST U/S. 234D OF THE IT ACT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ARGUED BY THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY