KALPANA RAO, MUMBAI V. ITO 7(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 5037/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 503719914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: K GOPAL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A MUMBAI . . , , , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5037/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10) SMT. KALPANA RAO, 11-A TRISHUL, KANE ROAD, BANDRA WEST, MUMBAI 400050 PAN: AAHPS 5984R (APPELLANT ) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1)(4), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK MARG, MUMBAI 400020 (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. GOPAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NEI L PHILIP DATE OF HEARING : 01/04/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 /04/2015 ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-13, MUMBAI DATED 25/4/2013 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE APPEAL ORDER DATED 25.04.2013 OF THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, MUMBAI ['CIT (APPEALS)'] IS ARBITRARY, INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES OF RS.4,34,845/- RELATING TO A.Y. 2009-10 . ITA NO.5037/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10) 2 3. THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) IS NOT READY TO ACCEPT TH AT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED PURELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES IN SPITE OF P RODUCING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS OF THE SAID EXPENSES. . 4. THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT AGREED THAT THE F OREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES WERE HAVING DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A PROPRIETARY CONCERN NA MELY M/S. WHITE WILLOWS COMMUNICATIONS AND IS DOING HUMAN RESOURCES CONSUL TANCY SERVICES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.4,34,835/- INCURRED ON FOREIGN TRAVEL WHICH IN ABSENCE OF PROPER DETAILS H AS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO IN ITS ENTIRETY. LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWAN CE. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED, HENCE, HAS FILED AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING LD. AR WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT COMPLETE DETAILS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) TO CLAIM THOSE EXPENDITURE. IN RESPONSE TO SUCH QUERY LD. AR HAS REFERRED TO THE LETTER FILED TO AO WHICH IS DATED 25/11/2011 AND COPY OF WHICH IS F ILED AT PAGES 14 & 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO WI TH REGARD TO INCURRENCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS AS UNDER: FOREIGN TRAVEL: THE ASSESSEE HAD VISITED SINGAPORE AND INDONESIA FO R THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES. WE ENCLOSE HER EWITH THE COPY OF HER PASSPORT COVERING THE VISITS TO THE SAID PLACES. T HE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL IS AS UNDER: A) DATES OF DEPARTURE AND ARRIVAL: I) MUMBAI-SINGAPORE 16.15.2008 II) SINGAPORE JAKARTA -16.05.2008 III) JAKARTA- SINGAPORE 29.05.2008 B) NAME AND RELATIONSHIP OF PERSONS WHO HAVE ACCOMPANI ES THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE HAD HERSELF VISITED ALL THE PLACES. ITA NO.5037/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10) 3 C) COUNTRIES VISITED THE ASSESSEE HAD VISITED SINGAPORE AND INDONESIA AN D THE PURPOSE OF VISITS WAS EXPLAINED VIDE OUR LETTER 21.11.2011. D. TOTAL EXPENSES IN INDIA AND ABROAD: I) EXPENSES IN INDIA: RS.36,094/- FOR TICKETS AND VISA FEES RS.3,745/- II) EXPENSES ABROAD : RS.3,95,006/- FOR LODGING/BO ARDING AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES IN RELATION TO PROFESSION. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT APART FROM THE A BOVE REPLY AND THE DETAILS SUBMITTED IN THE SHAPE OF COPY OF PASSPORT WHICH DE SCRIBE THE DATE OF VISIT OF THE ASSESSEE, NO OTHER DETAILS CAN BE FURNISHED. HOWE VER, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE VISIT WAS IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE HERSELF HAD VISITED THESE PLACES DISALLOWANCE IN ITS ENTIRE TY IS NOT CALLED FOR AND IN ABSENCE OF PROPER DETAILS REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE MA DE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY AO AND LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IT IS TRUE THAT ASSESSEE DOES NO T HAVE PROPER EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO INCURRENCE OF EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, IT IS DIF FICULT TO ASCERTAIN THE PERSONAL NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT WOULD MEET THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF IN PLACE OF D ISALLOWANCE OF ENTIRE EXPENDITURE, THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO 50% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.5037/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10) 4 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/04/2015 01/04/2015 SD/- SD/- ( , /RAJENDRA ) ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; $% DATED 01/04/2015 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. & '( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*'( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. +, ( & ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. +, / CIT 5. -. ),%/0 , &1 &/0 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 2 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, * -, ), //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . % . ./ VM , SR. PS