Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

It is observed that the relevant details of the expenses of Rs. 579.86 lakhs claimed under the head travelling and conveyance were duly furnished by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals) to show that the said expenses did not accrue any fringe benefit directly or deemingly to any person. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, did not accept this claim of the assessee on the ground that any supporting voucher or documentary evidence to support and substantiate the said claim was not produced by the assessee-company. It appears that the ld. CIT(Appeals), however, did not give any opportunity to the assessee to produce the relevant supporting evidence to substantiate its claim and rejected the claim of the assessee without giving such opportunity. There is thus a violation of principle of natural justice by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and keeping in view the same, we consider it fair and just to set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer to the fringe benefit value and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after giving an opportunity to the assessee to produce the relevant supporting evidence to support and substantiate its claim that the expenses incurred on travelling and conveyance did not accrue any fringe benefit directly or deemingly to any person.

Sec. 115WE(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 – MAT - The relevant details of the expenses of Rs. 579.86 lakhs claimed under the head travelling and conveyance were duly furnished by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) to show that the said expenses did not accrue any fringe benefit directly or deemingly to any person. The CIT(A), however, did not accept this claim of the assessee on the ground that any supporting voucher or documentary evidence to support and substantiate the said claim was not produced by the assessee-company. The CIT(A) did not give any opportunity to the assessee to produce the relevant supporting evidence to substantiate its claim and rejected the claim of the assessee without giving such opportunity. There is thus a violation of principle of natural justice by the CIT(A) . Thus, ITAT set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the additions made by the AO to the fringe benefit value and restored the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after giving an opportunity to the assessee to produce the relevant supporting evidence to support and substantiate its claim that the expenses incurred on travelling and conveyance did not accrue any fringe benefit directly or deemingly to any person. Appeal of the asessee allowed. - NICCO CORPORATION LIMITED V/s DEPUTY CIT - [2020] 23 ITCD Online 132 (ITAT-KOLKATA)