9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 on 25.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs..22,32,43,573/-. The assessment u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") was completed on 22.11.2011 and total income was assessed at Rs..22,48,18,740/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2016 and the same was served on the assessee. In response, assessee vide letter dated 06.04.2016 requested Assessing Officer to treat the original return of income filed on 06.04.2016 be considered as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Further, assessee requested to furnish a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. 3. The Assessing Officer vide letter dated 08.06.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,09,232/- was incurred by the assessee and assessee was asked to show cause why the foreign travel expenses of Rs..28,09,232/- be not disallowed u/s 37(1). 6. In response, assessee submitted that the expenses were incurred in relation to the business of the assessee and gave detailed submissions relating to the trips made by the Directors of the company to London and New York. 7. The Assessing Officer after considering the above submissions observed that assessee has made the claim of travel expenses to London without there being any supporting documents. With regard to trip to New York assessee has claimed that expenses were incurred to explore tying up with a university for a project on the company's Nagpur land. The Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the said parties which have been outstanding since long. It was submitted that advances written off pertain to the business of the assessee, accordingly, these are allowable expenditure. 10. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Assessing Officer observed that advances written off do not qualify for a deduction unless the debts incurred were on revenue account and the assessee has not been able to produce any evidentiary material to show that the advances written off are in the nature of trade advance. Accordingly, he disallowed the same. 11. Aggrieved, with the above order assessee preferred an appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. Before National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, assessee has filed variou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. c) That the C.I.T.(A) has erred in not following the following decisions:- 1) IPCA Laboratories Vs. DCIT 251 ITR 416,419 (Bom) 2) Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. DCIT 266 ITR 566,572 (Bom) 3) Grindwell Norton Vs. ACIT 267 ITR 673, 676 (Bom) 4) Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. ACIT 268 ITR 332, 334 (Bom) 5) Supreme Treves Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Bom) 6) Rajeshwar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. VITO 450 ITR 108 (Bom) 7) Manan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 449 ITR 587 (Bom) 8) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) 9) Garden Silk Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT 222 ITR 27, 29, 30 (Gujarat) 10) CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) 11) Deep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Assessing Officer has forwarded reasons for reopening and he submitted that in the above said reasons recorded the Assessing Officer has raised three issues and proceeded to make the addition only on two issues relating to disallowance of foreign travel expenses and advances written off. Even though the Assessing Officer has raised the issue of children education, however, subsequently after considering the submissions of the assessee he has not proceeded to make any addition on the above said issue. 15. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on the above said two issues, however, Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the issue of advance written off in favour of the assessee and sustained the addition of foreign tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the case of the assessee is reopened beyond four years. Therefore, the proviso is very much applicable and he prayed that the assessment passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law. 18. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and relied on the following case law: - i. CIT v. India Terminal Connector System Ltd., [2012] 21 taxmann.com 69 (Delhi) ii. Nickunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd., v. ACIT [2014] 48 taxmann.com 20 (Bombay) iii. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. Income Tax Officer [1993] 69 taxman 627 (SC) 19. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that the original assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 22.11.2011 and we also observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
