TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and no discrepancy has been pointed out by the auditors. The Assessing Officer has failed to point out any specific instance where the expenses have been reimbursed to an employee on the basis of a fraudulent or wrong certificate given by him/her. Moreover, there are categorical findings by the Tribunal that the exemption for LTC deserved to be granted to the assessee-company because the declaration filed in the prescribed pro forma by the assessee gives full details of the journey undertaken by the employee and the expenses actually incurred by them. The action of the assessee-company has been found to be bona fide. In view of the above, we do not find that any question of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnished to the effect that the employees or his/her family members have travelled to a certain distance on LTC. The allegation is that a number of employees of the assessee-company had claimed LTC as exempt without actually spending the amount received from their employer. Accordingly, the assessee was asked by the Revenue to produce evidence to prove that the LTC amount had actually been utilised by the employees concerned as per the provisions of section 10(5) of the Act read with rule 2B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee-company submitted its reply by stating that the company had allowed reimbursement on the strength of the certificate furnished by the employee. On the allegation that no evidence was obtained by the employer r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute that the disbursement has been made by the assessee for the expenses incurred by the employees on account of LTC. The assessee reimbursed the expenses incurred by the assessee after obtaining all the information in the prescribed form. The accounts of the assessee were subject to verification by the auditor appointed by the CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General of India), in the present case it is not brought on record that the auditor had pointed out any instance where wrong reimbursement had been made. The Assessing Officer had also not pointed out any specific instance where the expenses were reimbursed on wrong undertaking given by any of the employees. On a similar issue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Calcutta A Bench in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble from the facts of the present case. In view of the above discussion the appeals of the assessee are allowed. 4. The Revenue has claimed that the following question of law would arise for determination of this court : Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee holding that declaration filed in the prescribed pro forma by the employee was having full details of journey undertaken and the expenses incurred by them, whereas, no such details are required to be filled in the pro forma prescribed for filing the claim and hence were not available with the DDO to hold it to be exempt under section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ? 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
