9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (8) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of Rs. 7,500 made by the Income-tax Officer under s.37 (2B) of the Income-tax Act 1961. 2. The assessee is a commission agent in fresh fruits. The assessment year under appeal is 1971-72 of which the relevant previous year was the financial year ended on 31-0371. In this year, the assessee had claimed a sum of Rs. 7,500 under the head "Beopari expenses" spent on in running a Mess for the beo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee. 4. On behalf of the revenue. Shri R.K. Chaufla, submitted that s. 37(2B) enacts an absolute bar to the allowance of any entertainment expenses, notwithstanding that such expenses are incidental to business, He relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Briji Raman Das, Varanasi vs. Commissioner of Income-tax in which it was held by that High Court that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent expenses. In the present case, the assessee is a commission agent in fresh fruits and as a clientele in the outlying agencies. The assessee's constituents from the outlying agencies have to stay on either for lunch or for dinner. The assessee is running a mess or kitchen to provide them with meals etc. In the case of Devi Singh Bondhu Mal, relied on by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, a D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imes. In the circumstances, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was, in our opinion, justified in allowing the assessee's claim to the extent of Rs. 5,000 on account of expenses incurred in running the kitchen for this purpose. 7. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Briji Raman Dass & Sons, is distinguishable for two reasons. Firstly, it is not a case of commission agent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
