2010 (10) TMI 612 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 10A - In the absence of any adverse finding on the information filed by the assessee leaving aside the fact that no opportunity was provided to the assessee by the Assessing Officer during the course of remand proceedings as well as assessment proceedings the learned CIT (A) concluded that the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is without any basis and accordingly deleted the addition of 10 lakhs - Held that not find any merit in the contention of the appellant that the provision of section 40A(2)(b) are applicable in the instant case particularly in the absence of giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and in the absence of commenting upon the material placed before him during the course of remand proceedings Regarding Travelling Expenses - Considering the nature of the business of the assessee obtaining the latest information on the technological advancements concerning dental implants is necessary for a trader so as to utilise the same in the process of persuading the purchasers to utilise the imported products - Decided in favour of the assessee Regarding Sales Promotion Expenses and Commission Payments - there are no specific instances pointed out and no opportunity has been given to the appellant to rectify the prima facie adverse findings - No material whatsoever was furnished by the learned DR to contradict the findings of the learned CIT (A) - Appeal is rejected

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Deduction of travelling expenses.
3. Disallowance of sales promotion expenses and commission payments.
4. Disallowance of conveyance, general expenses, motor car expenses, staff welfare expenses, and telephone expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b):

The Revenue challenged the reasonableness of payments made by the assessee to M/s. Essen Medical Pvt. Ltd., where one of the partners held a substantial shareholding. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 10 lakhs, deeming the payments excessive and unreasonable. The assessee contended that the purchases were made at a lower rate compared to other parties and that the AO did not ask for evidence to justify the payments. The CIT (A) admitted additional evidence and deleted the addition, noting that the AO failed to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to justify the payments. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of specific queries from the AO and the necessity of following proper procedure.

2. Deduction of Travelling Expenses:

The assessee claimed Rs. 1,11,207 for the partner's travel abroad to gain scientific knowledge about dental implants. The AO disallowed the claim, asserting that the travel was for personal knowledge without business gains. The CIT (A) deleted the disallowance, recognizing the travel as necessary for business purposes. The Tribunal upheld this decision, referencing the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 37(1) of the Act, which does not require a direct link between expenditure and income. The Tribunal noted the importance of acquiring technological knowledge for business efficacy.

3. Disallowance of Sales Promotion Expenses and Commission Payments:

The AO disallowed Rs. 75,000 out of Rs. 4,98,850 in sales promotion expenses, questioning the reasonableness of payments to a related concern. Additionally, 25% of cash expenses without supporting vouchers were disallowed. The AO also disallowed a portion of commission payments, deeming them excessive. The CIT (A) found no specific enquiry or opportunity given to the assessee and deleted the disallowances. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting the lack of evidence from the AO to justify the disallowances.

4. Disallowance of Conveyance, General Expenses, Motor Car Expenses, Staff Welfare Expenses, and Telephone Expenses:

The AO disallowed 25% of these expenses for lack of supporting bills and vouchers. The CIT (A) reduced the disallowance to 10% for motor car and telephone expenses, considering routine personal use. The Tribunal found no material to contradict the CIT (A)'s findings and upheld the decision.

Conclusion:

The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed in its entirety. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decisions on all issues, emphasizing the importance of providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to justify their claims and the necessity of following proper procedural protocols in assessment proceedings.