TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce allowance and additional conveyance allowance paid to the officers of the LIC are not exempted under section 10(14)(i) of the Act. Since in the instant case there is no evidence that the expenditure was reimbursed and as no notification has been issued for exempting additional conveyance allowance under section 10(14)(i), the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. Though the CIT (A) in his order had observed that there are some judgements of the ITAT on this issue and though the Tribunal had held that the issue is covered by the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of the Kolkata Tribunal and of various High Courts, however, but we are constrained to observe that there is no such reference in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the employer against the impugned amount of Additional Conveyance allowance is concerned, no absolute inference can be drawn that the same was incurred by the assessee on conveyance only for the promotion of new business ? In the instant case, the assessee, working as a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India ( for short the LIC ) had received a sum of ₹ 3,74,013/- from his employer as additional conveyance allowance. In view of two certificates issued by the concerned branch of LIC, exemption was sought for under section 10(14)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer after considering the facts and the notifications held that the assessee was not eligible for any deduction claimed under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T.Act. The total income would be reduced to ₹ 11,90,723/- (Rs.16,23,700/- minus ₹ 24,564/-) say, ₹ 11,90,720/-. It has to be noted that the total income is lesser than the total income returned at ₹ 12,49,490/- by the sum of ₹ 58764/- because the appellant had, inadvertently (in the computation of income) not claimed the deductions of ₹ 24,564/- (conveyance allowance) and ₹ 34,200/- (part of additional conveyance) exempted u/s 10(14) of the I.T.Act in the certificate in Form no.16, and the Assessing Officer also did not correct this arithmetical error either in the order passed order u/s 143(1) or u/s 14(3)(i) of the I.T.Act. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Being aggrieved by the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s submitted that since no notification has been issued by the Central Government as postulated under section 10(14)(i) exempting additional conveyance allowance to a salaried employee of LIC and as notification No.GSR 606 (E) dated 9th June, 1989 stipulates for reimbursement when expenditure is actually incurred, as expenses were not reimbursed by the LIC the respondent is not entitled to deduction. There is no dispute that, as evident from the notification dated 9th June, 1989, any allowance granted to meet the expenditure incurred on conveyance in the performance of duties of office or employment of profit shall qualify for deduction under section 10(14)(i) of the Act only when there is reimbursement of the expenditure actually incurre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
