TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of supporting bills/vouchers or a non-business purpose. It is only when called upon to demonstrate the business purpose of a travel that it could be said that the assessee has, or has not, been able to prove the same, which would, in that case, be a matter of the evidence/s led and explanation/s furnished. No such exercise has been carried out in the instant case, and the Revenue s charge is, we are afraid, no more than a bald claim. Why, there is in fact even no claim of the expenditure incurred being at a disproportionate or substantial increase over that incurred under the same head in the past. No wonder the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) was unable to answer any of the queries raised by the Bench in this regard during heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for short) dated 07/03/2019, partly allowing the assessee s appeal contesting its assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act hereinafter) dated 28/09/2017 for assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The appeal raises two issues, which we shall take up in seriatim. 2. The first issue concerns the disallowance in the sum of ₹ 1,59,100, being ten percent of the claim in respect of travel expenditure (i.e., ₹ 15.91 lacs) u/s. 37(1) of the Act. Both the disallowance as well as its confirmation in first appeal has been on the basis that the expenditure is not fully supported by proper bills and vouchers and, besides, travel for personal purposes (of the Directors, etc.) could not be ruled out, so that a disallowa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be a matter of presumption, with we observing, as aforestated, no inquiry into facts. The presumption, rather, would be to the contrary, particularly considering that the accounts are audited, as why would a company bear the personal expenditure of any person? The primary burden on the assessee afore-stated is for the reason that only it is in the knowledge of the facts of its case, and could therefore substantiate/explain the same. But that does not empower the Revenue to impute, without any factual basis, either absence of supporting bills/vouchers or a non-business purpose. It is only when called upon to demonstrate the business purpose of a travel that it could be said that the assessee has, or has not, been able to prove the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e heard the parties, and perused the material on record. Commutation is a fact of everyday life, particularly urban, necessitating incurring expenditure thereon. Why, even expenditure on travel from home to office and back, unless covered by the terms of the employment, would be a personal expense of the person concerned. The Revenue is therefore justified to say that some expenditure on the personal use of the vehicles by the Directors or other employees of the assessee-company cannot be ruled out. No case to the contrary has been stated, much less made out. It is only where the Directors or other staff to whom the company vehicles have been provided are shown to have, as stated, personal vehicles for their own use, and of having incurr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
