DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 586/2008 . DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. . versus . . APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through None . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH . . O R D E R 29.05.2008 . The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 13th July, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' in ITA No. 4307/Del/2004 relevant for the Assessment Year 2001-2002. The Assessee is concerned with promoting exports particularly of textiles and readymade garments from India. In the relevant accounting year, the Assessee has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 8,19,277/- towards entertainment. Out of this, a sum of Rs. 5,88,705/- pertained to the entertainment expenditure incurred by the Chairman of the Council. This ITA 586/2008 Page no. 1 of 3 was disallowed by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the ground that there was no material to support the expenditure incurred and that as compared to previous years, the amount was fairly high. The Tribunal has noted that the Assessee is required to interact with foreign delegates etc. and for the purposes of generating exports, the Assessee is required to hold meetings over lunches and dinners with foreign delegates. Under these circumstances, the expenditure incurred towards entertainment was justifiable. The Tribunal has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Anr. [2007] 288 ITR 1. In this decision, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- ?The income tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own view point but that of a prudent businessman.? Under the circumstances, we are of the view that it was not possible for the Assessing Officer to substitute his opinion of the amount that should have been spent towards entertainment and promotion of exports. ITA 586/2008 Page no. 2 of 3 We do not see any substantial question of law arising in this appeal and there is no doubt about the correctness of the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. The second issue is with regard to prior period expenses of Rs. 5,51,337/-. Insofar as this is concerned, the Tribunal has found that . . the amount got crystallized in the relevant accounting year and that was also the year in which payments were made. Since the liability got crystallized in the relevant accounting year, the Tribunal was of the view that the prior period expenses could not have been disallowed. In our opinion, there is no error in the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard. No substantial question of law arises in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. . . . MADAN B. LOKUR, J . . . MAY 29, 2008 MANMOHAN SINGH, J SD . . . ITA 586/2008 Page no. 3 of 3