Sh. Ram Kishan Verma, D.O., L.I.C., Agra v. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Agra

ITA 19/AGR/2013 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2013 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1920314 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN ABEPV3966B
Bench Agra
Appeal Number ITA 19/AGR/2013
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Ram Kishan Verma, D.O., L.I.C., Agra
Respondent A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Agra
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 19-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 11-07-2013
Next Hearing Date 11-07-2013
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 16-01-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.19/AGRA/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI RAM KISHAN VERMA D.O. LIC VS. ASSTT. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX R/O. 18/28 MAITHAN CIRCLE-2 AGRA. AGRA. (PAN ABEPV 3966 B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.K. AGARWAL & SHRI RAHUL AGARWAL ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. MISHRA JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 11.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.07.2013 ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A)-I AGRA FOR A.Y. 2005 -06. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE REPRODUCED AS BELOW:- 1. BECAUSE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-I AGRA ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.2 59 249/- OUT OF RS.3 09 249/- CLAIMED AS FIXED CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE/ADDITIONAL CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE. LD. ITA NO.19/AGRA/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPR ECIATE THAT THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S 10( 14) OF THE I.T. ACT THIS HAS BEEN HELD AS ALLOWABLE BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. 2. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-I AGRA ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.50000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK A CCOUNTS. 3. BECAUSE THE ORDER IS AGAINST LAW & FACTS. 4. BECAUSE THE APPELLANT CARVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED THE FOLLOWING ADDIT IONAL GROUND:- 1. BECAUSE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS)-1 AGRA WAS NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING EXPENS ES ONLY AT RS.50 000/- OUT OF TOTAL CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE RECEI VED. IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES AND AUTHORITATIVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS THE ESTIMATE OF EXPENSES IS TOO LOW. 4. AFTER HARING THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PART IES WE NOTICE THAT IN FACT THIS IS NOT AN ADDITIONAL GROUND BUT PART OF ARGUMENT T HEREFORE THE SAME IS CONSIDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. THE APPEAL IS FILED LATE BY 105 DAYS. THE REASO N FOR DELAY IS STATED IN THE CONDONATION APPLICATION. THE DELAY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF MEDICAL PROBLEM OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E WE CONDONE THE DELAY AS THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT REASON I.E. ON A CCOUNT OF ILLNESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.19/AGRA/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 3 7. ON MERIT THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS A DEVELOPMENT OFFICER OF LIC OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED OVER AND ABOVE FIXED CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE/ADDITIONAL CONVEYANCE ALLOWANC E (FCA/ACA) SHOWN AS EXEMPTION IN FORM NO.16. THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE ON CONVEYANCE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES OF AN OFFICE OR EMPLOYMEN T OF PROFIT ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES FOR THAT PURPOSE. T HE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. IN THE LIGHT OF THE F ACT THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(14) ON ACCOUNT OF FCA/ACA AMOUNTING TO R S.3 09 249/- HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION HELD THAT AT THE MOST THE EXPENDITURE OF CONVEYANCE CAN BE ESTIMATED AT RS.50 000/. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ESTIMATION. THE EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50 000/- AND ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50 000/- AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.2 59 249/- HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PAR TIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF I.T.A.T. AGRA BENCH IN ITA NO.398/AGRA/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 03.05.2013. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE I.T.A.T. ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- ITA NO.19/AGRA/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 4 9. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE D O NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. ITAT AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF DINESH KU MAR GUPTA VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 77/AGRA/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 23.08.2012 C ONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(14) OF THE IT ACT DISMISS ED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA NO. 5 AND 5.1 OF THE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 10(14)(I) OF THE IT ACT PROVIDES AS UNDER : (14) (I) ANY SUCH SPECIAL ALLOWANCE OR BENEFIT N OT BEING IN THE NATURE OF A PERQUISITE WITHIN THE MEAN ING OF CLAUSE (2) OF SECTION 17 SPECIFICALLY GRANTED TO MEET EXPENSES WHOLLY NECESSARILY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURR ED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES OF AN OFFICE OR EMPLO YMENT OF PROFIT AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED TO THE EXTENT TO WH ICH SUCH EXPENSES ARE ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR THAT PURPOS E. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODU CED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE EXPE NSES WHOLLY NECESSARILY AND EXCLUSIVELY WERE INCURRED ON CONVEY ANCE IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES OF AN OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. T HUS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 10(14)(I) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) VERY ELABORATE LY DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ALSO CONSIDERI NG THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF LIC OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA 260 ITR 41 RIGHTLY HELD T HAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION IF THE AMO UNTS WERE ACTUALLY INCURRED IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES. HOWEVER NO EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS AND EVEN NO CERTIFICATE FROM THE EMPLOYER I.E. LIC WAS FURNISHED TO CERT IFY IF THE ASSESSEE SPENT ANY AMOUNT IN PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUT IES. THEREFORE IT WAS VERY CLEAR ON RECORD THAT THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT ANY EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ITA NO.19/AGRA/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 5 IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES. THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL RELIED UPON UNREPORTED DECISION OF AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA (SUPRA) IN WHICH NO REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AS TO WHY DEDUCTION WAS RESTRICTED TO 20% ON THE ISSUE . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD THE ASSESSEE WOU LD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR ANY DEDUCTION ON THIS ISSUE. FURTHER THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMESH CHAND AGARWAL 286 ITR 566 HELD INCENTIVE BONUS RECEIVED BY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER OF LIC FORMS PART OF SALARY AND EXPENDITURE INCURRED OVER AND ABOVE STANDARD DEDUCTION UNDER S. 16(I) FOR EARNING THAT INCOME IS NOT ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. 5.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN GROUND NO. 1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE SAM E IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9.1 IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT P RODUCE ANY VOUCHERS FOR CLAIMING THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF CONVEYANCE AND ADDL. CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCES. ACCORDING TO THE SALARY CERTIFICATE LI C HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.61 433/- HAS BEEN P AID TO THE EMPLOYEE TO MEET THE EXPENSES WHOLLY NECESSARILY AND EXCLUSIVE LY INCURRED FOR PERFORMING THE DEVELOPMENT DUTIES AND HAVE BEEN ACT UALLY INCURRED WHOLLY FOR THAT PURPOSE AND IS EXEMPT U/S. 10(14) OF THE I T ACT. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF RS.1 17 062/- FOR EARNING INCENTIVE BONUS. AS PER D ECISION IN THE CASE OF A.K. GHOSH (SUPRA) SINCE THE INCENTIVE BONUS IS PA RT OF THE SALARY THEREFORE NO FURTHER DEDUCTION IS PERMISSIBLE. THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT PRODUCED ANY OTHER EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO AND LD. CIT(A) TO PROV E NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF RS.10(14) THAT THE AMOUNT NOW CLAIMED AS DEDUCTI ON WAS ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR THAT PURPOSE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EV IDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO P ROVE NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF SEC. 10(14)(I) OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO.19/AGRA/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 6 9. THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SI MILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE DECIDED BY THE I.T.A.T. AGRA BENCH IN ITA NO.398/A GRA/2011 ORDER DATED 03.05.2013. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS REGARDING PROOF THAT IN FACT THE ASSESSEE H AS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL WE FOLLOW THE ABOVE ORDER OF I.T.A.T. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED ON THE ISSUE. 10. THE SECOND EFFECTIVE GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF AD DITION OF RS.50 000/-. 11. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. NOT ICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.50 000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT O N DIFFERENT DATES. THE A.O. DID NOT SATISFY WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.50 000/-. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITIO N. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PA RTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE NOTICE THE FACTS OF GROUND NO.1 WHERE WE HAVE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EX TENT OF RS.2 59 249/- ON ACCOUNT OF FCA/ACA ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED. WHEN IN THAT GROUND IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE A SSESSEE DID NOT INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE IT CAN BE CONCLUDED ITA NO.19/AGRA/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 7 THAT THE AMOUNT TO THAT EXTENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SAVE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE SET OFF OF THIS ADDITION IS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ADDITION SUSTAI NED AT RS.2 59 249/-. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE ADDITION OF RS.50 000/- IS DELETED. 13. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT AGRA BENCH AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA TRUE COPY