TMI Blog1989 (6) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penses of Rs. 15,100, Rs. 5,000 included which on account of professional charges for preparation of the return for 1976, Rs. 4,100 being the travelling expenses for two visits made by the assessee's representative from Bombay to Calcutta and the balance amount being fees for income-tax appeals for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The Income-tax Officer did not allow the said expenses as deduction. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who allowed Rs. 5,000 under section 80vv of the Act. The assessee then took the matter to the Tribunal and submitted that all these expenses were allowable and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in restricting the allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s mentioned under section 80VV of the Act. Same is the position with regard to the travelling expenses of the consultants who came from Bombay to Calcutta in connection with these matters. These expenses were not paid for appearing before the authorities mentioned above. These expenses are, therefore, a permissible deduction. There is no dispute with regard to the expenses which have been incurred for appearing before the authorities mentioned above. Here, the assessee has incurred the expenses of Rs. 6,000. The assessee cannot claim any deduction exceeding Rs. 5,000. This being the position, the assessee cannot get deduction of Rs, 1,000, i.e., exceeding Rs. 5,000. The Tribunal, therefore, restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,000. We hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the determination of the liability under the Act by way of tax, penalty or interest. Such expenditure does not come within the purview of that section and, accordingly, it was rightly allowed. Only Rs. 6,000 was incurred by the assessee, as found by the Tribunal, being the fees of the income-tax lawyer in connection with the appearance before the appellate authorities or the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal rightly restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,000 and allowed Rs. 5,000 under section 80VV. We are of the view that, on the facts of this case, the Tribunal came to a correct conclusion. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the negative and in favour of the assessee. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
