M/S. AURA PHARMACEUTICALS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT - 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4135/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 September 2021AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the AO did not examine the insurance policy, while the CIT(A) did. Finding the CIT(A)'s finding not justifiable, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee incurred Rs. 2,46,706/- on insurance premium for its Directors. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this as personal expense, and the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The assessee appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the directors' medi-claim and keyman insurance premium are genuine business expenses or personal expenses. Whether the AO properly examined the insurance policy before disallowing the expense.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri None
Hearing: 03/08/2021Pronounced: 27/09/2021

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”) relevant to the A.Y.2015- 16.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “

1. Directors’ Medi-claim expenses including Keyman insurance premium of Rs.2,46,706/- disallowed as personal expenses, being genuine business expenses, be allowed in full.

2. Your appellant prays leave to add, alter, amend modify any grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of the appeal.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 28.09.2015 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.2,24,66,110/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through the CASS. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. On verification, it was found that the assessee has incurred a sum of Rs.2,46,706/- on account of Insurance Premium for its Directors. The notice was given and after the reply of the assessee, the same was treated as personal expenses and accordingly disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. The income of the assessee was assessed in sum of Rs.3,27,12,812/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.

4.

We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the Revenue and have gone through the case filed carefully. We noticed that at the time of deciding the matter of controversy, the AO nowhere examined the Insurance Policy but CIT(A) has discussed about the examination of the Insurance Policy. The finding of the CIT(A) is quite contrary to the finding of the AO which nowhere leads to this fact that the AO has examined the Keyman Insurance Policy pertaining to the Directors/Appellants if any. Anyhow, the finding of the CIT(A) is not considered to the justifiable, therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore the issue before the AO to decide the matter of controversy afresh by examining the Insurance Policy and also by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/09/2021

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →