Amit Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)- Assessee made a foreign trip to Roam, Dubai and Kathmandu and claimed expenses at Rs.1,45,151/-. Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce the evidence and also business purposes. Assessee stated that foreign tour was for surveying interiors of foreign hotels and resorts at the request of his client Arneja Creation & Hotels (P) Ltd. who wanted interiors of their hotel project at Darjeeling in similar fashion as those at Kathmandu. Assessee explained that tour to Roam was for the purpose of exploring prospectus of importing special type of Marbles for interior decoration and Dubai was a stop-over en-route to Rome. Assessing Officer in the absence of evidence treated 20% of foreign trip expenses as personal in nature and disallowed a sum of Rs.29,003/-. We find that none of the authorities below have denied that this is not for the purpose of business. Once it is not denied, the foreign trip expenses cannot be disallowed on ad-hoc basis.
Amit Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer
Decided by- ITAT Kolkatta
I.T.A Nos. 1673 & 1674/Kol/2010
Assessment Years: 2006- 07 & 2007- 08
Decided on – 30.06.2011
ORDER
Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member :
These two appeals filed by assessee are arising out of separate orders of CIT(A)- XIX, Kolkata in Appeal Nos. 143&395/CIT(A)-XIX/ITO, Wd.32(1)/08-09 & 09-10 vide dated 09-02-2009 and 19-02-2010. Assessments were framed by I.T.O, Ward 32(1), Kolkata for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his orders dated 31-12-2008 and 3 1-12-2009.
“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the id. A.O. as well the Ld. CIT(A)-XIX, Kol were not justified in not allowing the Bad Debts of Rs.4,580/- on the alleged ground by ignoring the fact that said amount was actually irrecoverable. Even otherwise the same is allowable as “Discount Allowed”. Hence, the addition made by AO and sustained by the LD. CIT(A)- XIX, Kol as aforesaid is unjustified, arbitrary, excessive and based on surmises and guess and therefore liable to be deleted in full.”
3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of case. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that assessee claimed discount/ bad debts at Rs. 4,580/-, but in the nomenclature of ‘bad debts’. The AO observed that assessee did some consultancy and supervision job for Oriental Apartment (P) Ltd and raised bill against the same at Rs. 1,10,200/-. The assessee received Rs. 1 lac as advance and balance amount of Rs. 10,200/- was claimed as bad debt. The assessee explained that he has not received balance amount and claimed the same as bad debt. The AO found from NSDL site that Oriental Apartment Pvt. Ltd. has deposited TDS on account of assessee at Rs. 5,620/-, hence balance claim of assessee of bad debt of Rs.4,580/- was disallowed. We find that assessee has written off this amount in its books of account, this can be treated as discount or bad debt, because the claim of the assessee will not be defeated by mentioning nomenclature. Accordingly, we allow this claim of assessee. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.





