Gebrial De Prasad, Chennai v. ITO, Non Corp Ward-23(4), Chennai

ITA 239/CHNY/2019 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2019 | Result: Partly Allowed

Our System has flagged this appeal as eligible for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. If you are party to this appeal, get on a Free Consultation Call with our team of Legal Experts who shall guide you as to how you can save huge Interest and Penalty in VSV Scheme.


Apply Now
        
Try VSV Calculator

Appeal Details

RSA Number 23921714 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN ADUPG3864D
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 239/CHNY/2019
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant Gebrial De Prasad, Chennai
Respondent ITO, Non Corp Ward-23(4), Chennai
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 15-05-2019
First Hearing Date 15-05-2019
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 01-02-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI $ % .. ' * + BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU R.L.REDDY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.239/CHNY/2019 * /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 MR.GABRIEL DE PRASAD PLOT NO.10 10 TH CROSS STREET HERITAGE JAYENDRA NAGAR SEMBAKKAM CHENNAI-600 073. V . THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD- 23(4)(I/C) TAMBARAM CHENNAI. [PAN: ADUPG3864D ] ( / /APPELLANT) ( 01/ /RESPONDENT) / 2 / APPELLANT BY : MR.I.DINESH ADV. 01/ 2 /RESPONDENT BY : MR. GURUBASHYAM JCIT 2 /DATE OF HEARING : 28.11.2019 2 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 .11.2019 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 24.10.2018 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10 CHENNAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT( A)) IN ITA NO.214/16- 17/CIT(A)-10 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010-11 THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD ARISEN FROM A SSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2016 PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFF ICER (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) U/S.143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). ITA NO.239/CHNY/2019 :- 2 -: 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN MEM O OF APPEAL FILED WITH INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (HEREIN AFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 2. REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT 2.1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERR ED IN UPHOLDING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 3. DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF ALLOWANCES 3.1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF 50% OF CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE . 3.2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSS LY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF OTHER ALLOWANCES UNDER SALA RY INCOME AGGREGATING RS.1 81 140/-. 3.3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGH T TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF ALLOWANCE CLAIMED BY THE APPE LLANT WERE DULY VERIFIED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE EMPLOYER OF THE APPELLANT IN FO RM NO. 16 AND THEREFORE OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. 3.4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSS LY ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT APPELLANT HAD NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE WHI CH WAS REIMBURSED BY THE EMPLOYER. 3.5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGH T TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE BOOKS AND PERIODICALS MEDICA L EXPENSES UNIFORM ALLOWANCE ACADEMIC ALLOWANCE WERE ALL DULY INCURRED BY THE AP PELLANT AND THE SAME WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE EMPLOYER AND REIMBURSED. THEREF ORE THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONA L GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS EMPLOYEE W ORKING WITH DIAMOND ENGINEERING (CHENNAI) PRIVATE LIMITED IN THE CAPACI TY OF VICE PRESIDENT- FINANCE. IT WAS OBSERVED BY REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HUGE DEDUCTIONS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM SALARY AND THERE WAS A NEGATIVE INCOME IN RESPECT OF HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH LED TO RE-OPENING OF THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT BY REVENUE BY INVOKING PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 147 ITA NO.239/CHNY/2019 :- 3 -: OF THE 1961 ACT. ORIGINALLY RETURN OF INCOME WAS PR OCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE 1961 ACT AND NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY REVENUE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SEC TION 143(2) OF THE 1961 ACT. THE RE-OPENING WAS ADMITTEDLY DONE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS BUT BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF SIX YEARS FROM END O F THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE 1961 ACT WAS ISSUED BY AO TO ASSESSEE ON 20.05.2016 WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY AO TO BE SERVED ON ASSESSEE ON 24.05.2016. DURING RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO ASKED ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE VARIOUS DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED UNDER TH E HEAD INCOME FROM SALARIES BUT ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO S UBMIT BILLS ALBEIT IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR OFFIC IAL PURPOSES. THE AO TREATED THESE EXPENSES TO BE PERSONAL IN NATURE AND ONLY DEDUCTION TO THE TUNE OF 50% OF CONVEYANCE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY ASSES SEE WERE ALLOWED BY AO AS BEING SPENT ON OFFICIAL PURPOSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 72 000/- WHILE REST OF THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED TOWARDS EXPENSE S FROM SALARY INCOME AGGREGATING TO RS. 2 53 140/- WERE DISALLOWED BY AO AND BROUGHT TO TAX VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2016 PASSED BY TH E AO U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE 1961 ACT BY HOLDING A S UNDER: THE ASSESSES WAS REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN THE DEDUCTIO NS CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD SALARY. THE ASSESSES FURNISHED SOME EXPLANATIONS FOR THESE DEDU CTIONS. IN HIS LETTER DATED 15-9-2016. THE ASSESSES STATED THAT THOUGH HE DOES NOT HAVE BI LLS THE CONVEYANCE EXPENSES OF RS.1 44 000/-WAS SPENT ONLY FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF THE CLAIM IS RESTRICTED TO 50% AND BALANCE OF RS.72 000/- IS DIS ALLOWED. CASE DISCUSSED WITH ASSESSEE AND THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES ARE ALSO DISALLOWED AS T HEY ARE PERSONAL IN NATURE AND ALSO THERE IS NO SUPPORTING PROOF. THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS ARE DISALLOWED. CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE : RS. 72 000/- PERIODICALS :RS.60 000/- MEDICAL :RS.15 000 /- REFRESHMENT :RS.34 140/- ITA NO.239/CHNY/2019 :- 4 -: UNIFORM ALLOWANCE :RS.48 000/- ACADEMIC :RS.24 000/- ------------ RS.2 53 140/- THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED AS BELOW: TOTAL INCOME RETURNED :RS.6 43 269/- ADD : DISALLOWANCE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE :RS.2 53 140/- -------------- TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED RS.8 96 409/- --------------- 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY AN ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY AO VI DE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2016 PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE 1961 ACT THE ASSESSEE FILED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE L D.CIT(A) AND ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) AS UNDER: 5.2 APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) : 5.2.1 THE RELEVANT GROUNDS FILED BY THE APPEL LANT ON THIS ISSUE ARE AS UNDER: - 1 '...THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS ERRED IN M AKING DISALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS.2 53 140/- PERTAINING TO ALLOWANCES CLAIMED AS D EDUCTIONS UNDER THE HEAD SALARY. A. CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE OF RS.1 44 000 WAS SPENT FO R OFFICIAL PURPOSE ONLY WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED 50% OF THE CONVEYAN CE ALLOWANCE OF RS.72 000 FOR NOT PRODUCING THE BILLS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE BIL LS AND PROOFS FOR CLAIMING THE CONVEYANCE EXPENSES WITH HIS EMPLOYER AND HENCE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE SAME NOW. B. REIMBURSEMENT OF BOOKS & PERIODICALS OF RS.60 00 0 WAS DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE WAS A VICE PRESIDENT - FINANCE AND HAD TO SPEND FOR REFER ENCE BOOKS & 'SUBJECT' PERIODICALS FOR REFERENCE IN OFFICIAL MATTERS. FOR CLAIMING REIMBUR SEMENT OF EXPENSES HE HAD TO SUBMIT THE ORIGINALS TO HIS EMPLOYER SO HE WAS UNABLE TO PROD UCE THE BILLS. C. REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL EXPENSES OF RS.15 000 C LAIMED U/S.17(2) WAS ALSO DISALLOWED. THE MAXIMUM EXEMPTION TO CLAIM MEDICAL EXPENSES REI MBURSEMENT U/S. 17(2) IS RS.15 000. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED THE MEDIC INE PURCHASE BILLS WITH THE EMPLOYER TO CLAIM HIS REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL EXPENSES SO HE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE MEDICAL BILLS NOW. D. REFRESHMENT OF RS.34 140 WAS DISALLOWED. THE ASS ESSEE IS A VICE PRESIDENT - FINANCE IN THE COMPANY HE HAD TO SPEND SOME OUT OF POCKET EXP ENSES FROM HIS OWN POCKET TOWARDS ENTERTAINING HIS OFFICIAL GUESTS TOWARDS LUNCH / RE FRESHMENT WHICH HE CLAIMED AS REIMBURSEMENT FROM HIS EMPLOYER AND WAS REIMBURSED AFTER SUBMITTING THE ORIGINAL BILLS. HENCE THE PROOF FOR CLAIMING REIMBURSEMENT OF REFR ESHMENT COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. E. RS.48 000 TOWARDS UNIFORM ALLOWANCE WAS DISALLOW ED. THE ASSESSEE IS WORKING AS AN EMPLOYEE IN DIAMOND ENGINEERING CHENNAI P LTD. WHIC H IS ENGAGED IN A BUSINESS OF ENGINEERING & FABRICATION. THE EMPLOYEES IN THE COM PANY HAVE TO FOLLOW A PROPER DRESS CODE DURING BUSINESS HOURS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS A VICE PRESIDENT - FINANCE HE WAS GIVEN A UNIFORM PURCHASE REIMBURSEMENT BY SUBMITTIN G THE ORIGINAL BILLS. HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THE BILLS FOR CLAI MING THE UNIFORM ALLOWANCE ONLY SENIOR MANAGEMENT PEOPLE WERE ASKED TO BUY THE DRESS BY TH EMSELVES AND SUBMIT PURCHASE BILLS ITA NO.239/CHNY/2019 :- 5 -: FOR REIMBURSEMENT WHEREAS EMPLOYEES STAFF & WORKE RS WERE ALL SUPPLIED UNIFORM BY THE COMPANY ITSELF DIRECTLY. F. ACADEMIC ALLOWANCE OF RS.24 000 WAS DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSES HAD TO ATTEND FEW TRAINING SESSIONS / SEMINARS DURING THE COURSE OF HI S EMPLOYMENT FOR WHICH HE INCURRED SOME EXPENSES AND THE SAME WAS REIMBURSED BY HIS EM PLOYER. FOR GETTING THE EXPENSES REIMBURSED HE HAD TO SUBMIT THE ORIGINAL BILLS SO HE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE BILLS /PROOFS DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. 2) SALARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FORM 16 BY THE EMPLO YER IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH WHEREIN ALL THE ABOVE ALLOWANCES WERE DULY ALLOWED UNDER APPROP RIATE SECTIONS AFTER GETTING SATISFIED WITH THE CLIENT. ALSO THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY PR ODUCED THE BILLS TO THE EMPLOYER TO SATISFY THEM AND GET THE CLAIM APPROVED. ACCORDINGLY IT WI LL NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO SUBMIT ONE MORE TIME THE ORIGINAL BILLS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WHICH WERE ALREADY SUBMITTED TO THE EMPLOYER... ' DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE AR OF THE APP ELLANT REITERATED THE GROUNDS TAKEN AND FURTHER STATED THAT HE IS UNABLE TO PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 4.2 THE LD.CIT(A) REJECTED AFORESAID CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE . BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IN NUT-SHELL HAD SUBM ITTED THAT ORIGINAL BILLS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE HIS EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYER HAD ITSELF GRANTED THESE DEDUCTION FROM GROSS SALARY WHILE ISSUING FORM NO. 16 BASED UPON ORIGINAL BILLS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE HIS EMP LOYER. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPRESSED ITS INABILITY TO SUBMIT BILLS EVEN BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) AND IT WAS PRAYED TO ALLOW THESE EXPENSES. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES. THESE CONTENTIONS WERE REJECTED BY LD.CIT(A) AND ADDITIONS TO INCOME BY WAY OF AFORESA ID DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES WERE CONFIRMED/SUSTAINED BY LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 24.10.2018 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A). 5. THE MATTER HAS NOW REACHED TRIBUNAL AT BEHEST O F ASSESSEE WHO IS AGGRIEVED BY APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT( A) AND ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO INCOME TAX RETURN FILED WITH THE D EPARTMENT AND ALSO TO FORM NO.16 ISSUED BY HIS EMPLOYER WHEREBY DEDUCTION S FOR THESE EXPENSES WERE GIVEN/ALLOWED BY EMPLOYER WHILE COMPU TING INCOME FROM ITA NO.239/CHNY/2019 :- 6 -: SALARIES. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT ASSESSEE WAS WORKING WITH M/S. DIAMOND ENGINEERING ( CHENNAI) P RIVATE LIMITED AT A SENIOR POSITION OF VICE PRESIDENT FINANCE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD TO INCUR CERTAIN EXPENSES NECESSARILY TOWARDS O FFICIAL PURPOSES SUCH AS CONVEYANCE ENTERTAINMENT OF PERSONS CONNECTED WITH EMPLOYERS BUSINESS MEDICAL EXPENSES BOOKS PERIODICALS ETC. FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENTS WERE SOUGHT FROM EMPLOYER AND ORIGIN AL BILLS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE EMPLOYER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ONLY AFTER VERIFICATION THAT EMPLOYER HAS ALLOWED THESE DEDUC TION FROM INCOME FROM SALARIES RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING BILLS WITH IT TO SUBSTANTIATE GENUINENESS OF THESE EXPENSES AND ALSO TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INFACT INC URRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE ORIGINAL BILLS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE EMP LOYER WHO AFTER VERIFICATION ALLOWED THESE DEDUCTIONS. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT MATER BEING OLD FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 IT IS NOT POSSIBLE AT THIS STAGE TO GET BILLS FOR THESE EXPENSES. IT WAS REITERATED BY LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR OFFICIAL PURP OSES AND THE EMPLOYER HAS ITSELF ALLOWED THE SAME IN FORM NO.16. IT WAS B ROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF 50% AGGREG ATING TO RS. 72 000/- WAS ITSELF ALLOWED BY THE AO WHILE DISAL LOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2 53 140/- WAS MADE BY THE AO. IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TO WEAR PROPER UNIFORM IN OFFICE AND F OR THAT PURPOSES THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED. IN NUT-SHELL IT IS CL AIMED THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES WERE TOWARDS OFFICIAL PURPOSES BUT THERE I S NO EVIDENCES TO ITA NO.239/CHNY/2019 :- 7 -: SUBSTANTIATE THESE EXPENSES EXCEPT THAT EMPLOYER IT SELF HAS ALLOWED THESE EXPENSES IN FORM NO. 16 AND ORIGINAL BILLS WERE SUB MITTED BEFORE EMPLOYER. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT KEEPING IN VIEW SOCIAL STATUS SENIOR POSITION HELD BY ASSESSE E AS. VP-FINANCE THESE EXPENSES ARE REASONABLE AND ACCORDINGLY SHOULD BE A LLOWED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING INCOME FROM SALARY. THE LD.DR OBJEC TED TO ALLOWABILITY OF THESE EXPENSES AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NO T PROVE ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF THESE EXPENSES. THE LEARNED DR WOULD R ELY ON ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE WAS WORKING IN A SENIOR POSITION AS VICE PRESIDENT-FINANCE WITH M/S. DIAMOND ENGINE ERING (CHENNAI) PRIVATE LIMITED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED GROSS SALARY OF RS. 17 76 610/- DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ISSUED FORM N O.16 BY HIS EMPLOYER WHEREIN FROM AFORESAID GROSS SALARY EARNE D BY ASSESSEE TOTAL DEDUCTION OF RS. 5 57 460/- TOWARDS EXPENSES REIMBU RSEMENT /ALLOWANCES WERE ALLOWED BY THE EMPLOYER. THE AO DISALLOWED C LAIM OF EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENT/ ALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2 53 140/- FROM SALARY INCOME WHICH EXPENSES WERE MAINLY IN THE NATURE OF CONVEYANCE PERIODICALS MEDICAL REFRESHMENT UNIFORM AND ACA DEMIC EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE AO HOWEVER HAD INTE R-ALIA ALLOWED RS. 72 000/- BEING 50% OF CONVEYANCE EXPENSES CLAIMED T O THE TUNE OF RS. ITA NO.239/CHNY/2019 :- 8 -: 1 44 000/- WHILE BALANCE CONVEYANCE EXPENSES REIMB URSEMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 72 000/- WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO WHILE FRAMING SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS WHICH DISALLOWANCE OF CONVEYANCE EXPE NSES FORMS PART OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2 53 140/- OF EXPENSES MA DE BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAD HOWEVER CONSISTENTLY CLAIMED THAT HE SUBMITTED ORIGINAL BILLS TO HIS EMPLOYER WHO BASED ON SUCH BILLS SUB MITTED BY ASSESSEE IN ORIGINAL GRANTED DEDUCTION/ALLOWANCES FROM GROSS SA LARIES EARNED BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD HOWEVER HAD EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THESE BILLS BEFORE AO AS WELL LEARNED CIT(A ) ON THE GROUNDS THAT ORIGINAL BILLS ARE WITH EMPLOYER. EVEN BEFORE US SA ME PLEA IS TAKEN THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY BILL/EVIDENCE TO PROVE GE NUINENESS OF THESE EXPENSES OR TO PROVE THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE AT AL L INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE U S THAT MATTER IS VERY OLD AS IT PERTAINS TO PREVIOUS YEAR 2009-10 RELEVANT TO AY: 2010-11 AND ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL B ILLS/EVIDENCES AT THIS STAGE TO SUBSTANTIATE GENUINENESS OF THESE EXPENSES OR TO PROVE THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE AT ALL INCURRED BY ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO CLAIMED THAT ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED PERSON. IT IS ALSO A MATTER O F FACT AS IS EMANATING FROM RECORDS THAT AO AS WELL LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ISSUE ANY NOTICES U/S 133(6) AND/OR SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE 1961 ACT TO ASSESSEES EMPLOYER NAMELY M/S. DIAMOND ENGINEERING ( CHENNAI ) PRIVATE LIMITED TO GET AFORESAID INFORMATION/EVIDENCES DIRECTLY FROM A SSESSEES EMPLOYER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS CHALLE NGE BEFORE US AS TO INVOCATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE 1961 ACT BY REVENUE. IT IS A ITA NO.239/CHNY/2019 :- 9 -: MATTER OF RECORD THAT ORIGINALLY RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED BY REVENUE U/S 143(1) OF THE 1961 ACT AND NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY REVENUE ORIGINALLY U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 143(2) OF THE 1961 ACT. THUS KEEPING IN VIEW TOTALITY OF CIRCUM STANCES OF THIS CASE BEFORE US AS WELL IN FAIRNESS TO BOTH THE PARTIES AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES IN CONTEXT OF ASSESS EE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATUS BEING VP-FINANCE AND HAVING EARNED GROSS SA LARY OF RS. 17 76 610/- DURING PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY: 20 10-11 AND ALSO THAT EMPLOYER ALLOWED THESE DEDUCTIONS IN FORM NO. 16 IT SELF WE ALLOW THESE EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF 50% OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2 53 140/- MADE BY AUTHORITIES BELOW WHILE BALANCE OF 50% OF DISA LLOWANCES OF THESE EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2 53 140/- MADE BY AUTH ORITIES BELOW STOOD CONFIRMED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IN I TA NO.239/CHNY/2019 FOR AY: 2010-11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( $ % . . ' ) ( DUVVURU R.L.REDDY ) * /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) ( RAMIT KOCHAR ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI =/DATED: 28 TH NOVEMBER 2019. TLN 2 0*O PO / COPY TO: ITA NO.239/CHNY/2019 :- 10 -: 1. / / APPELL ANT 4. U / CIT 2. 01/ / RESPONDENT 5. O 0** / DR 3. U ( ) / CIT(A) 6. / GF