Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1157 - ITAT AHMEDABADReopening of assessment - disallowing of expenditure claimed against incentive bonus and conveyance allowance - Held that:- Hon’ble apex court’s decision in Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (1997 (12) TMI 12 - SUPREME Court) settles the law that a reopening can be resorted to on the basis of a mere prima facie material wherein sufficiency and correctness of the same is not to be considered at the threshold stage. We observe in this backdrop of facts and law that the Assessing Officer rightly reopened assessment in assessee’s case after taking note of hon’ble apex court’s decision hereinabove. This first substantive ground in assessee’s appeal is accordingly declined Expenditure claimed against incentive bonus - There is no dispute that the LIC has issued a clarification way back w.e.f. 01.04.1989 entitling Development Officers for reimbursement to the extent of 30% of the incentive bonus granted to them. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s former judgment also caps the same @30%. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends that the assessee’s expenditure in question is much less than the one in hand. Mr. Popat strongly rebut the same by referring to assessee’s reply dated 30.12.2013 at page 6 of assessment order claiming the actual expenditure to be much more than the one in question. We find that the same has nowhere been controverted in assessment order. The Revenue’s argument regarding quantification stands rejected. Assessee appeal allowed. Restricting conveyance disallowance only after adopting estimation method - We observe in these facts that there is no plausible reason for the CIT(A) to restrict the impugned expenditure in absence of any specific irregularity being pointed out. The fact however also remains that the assessee’s evidence in the case file does not produce the relevant details. We thus conclude that the impugned disallowance of conveyance allowance @50% is too high. The same is accordingly ordered to be deleted to the extent of 75%. The balance 25% disallowance amount of ₹ 10,155/- is accordingly upheld. The very order shall be followed in latter two years regarding this third substantive ground (supra) wherein the impugned disallowance would stand confirmed @25% of the original claim raised before the Assessing Officer. This third substantive ground in all three appeals is partly accepted.
|