AJAY JAIN,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

ITA 388/LKW/2024Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 July 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to adequately explain the nature of expenses or their business relevance to lower authorities, and submitted a ledger account as new evidence for the first time. To ensure a fair and comprehensive examination, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer to consider all new and existing evidence and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partner in M/s Microlit, had credit card expenses of Rs. 54,79,618/- reimbursed by the firm. The Assessing Officer disallowed 10% of these expenses as personal due to lack of clear bifurcation, an addition which the CIT(A) upheld. The assessee contended that these were corporate card expenses used solely for the firm's business travel, not claimed by him, and the firm had properly accounted for them.

What were the issues?

Whether credit card expenses reimbursed by a partnership firm to a partner, alleged to be for business but lacking detailed explanation before lower authorities, constitute personal expenditure or a perquisite, and the admissibility and consideration of new evidence at the appellate stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 10(2A),Section 17(2)(iv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW

Hearing: 23.04.2025Pronounced: 04.07.2025

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. JCIT(Appeals)-13, Mumbai under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27.05.2024 dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the ld. AO passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 15.12.2018. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That the Learned Lower Court erred in dismissing the appeal on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

2.

That the appeal filed u/s 250 should have been accepted by the Learned Lower Court.

3.

Learned Lower Court erred in confirming the addition made in the order passed U/s 143(3) ignoring the various replies and evidences filed before the Learned Assessing Officer.

4.

That Learned

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(2A)

All 173 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(2A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →