DALMIA (BROS.) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

2 2. Assessee is a company carrying on the business of rendering consultancy services. For the Asstt. Year 2003-04, they have filed their return of income on 2.12.2003 declaring the loss of Rs.29,68,536/-. However, the assessment was completed by order dated 27.3.2006 making following additions: i) Depreciation for separate consideration 604539 ii) Provision for bonus 46961 iii) Expenses pertaining to earlier years 148205 iv) Cessation of liability u/s 41(1) 1986551 v) Training expenses of Sh. Neelabh Dalmia 1834286 vi) Salary expenses 4345122 vii) Foreign travelling expenses 10229341 viii) Out of rent 3035308 ix) On account of interest expenses 3370689 3. Assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) challenging the additions from S.Nos. 4 to 9 as enumerated above. Learned CIT(A) by way of impugned order while deleting the other additions sustained two additions, namely, Rs.18,34,286/- disallowing the training expenses of one Mr. Neelabh Dalmia and Rs.1,02,29,341/- disallowing the foreign travel expenses. Hence, the assessee is in this appeal before us challenging the sustaining of these two additions made by disallowing the training and foreign travel expenses respectively.

In so far as the training expenses are concerned, learned AO disallowed the same on the ground that the said expenses incurred in the garb of training expenses on the son of Shri Anurag Dalmia, who is Advisor of the company and also the director of other major companies of Dalmia group and they are not related to the business of the company but on the other hand are of personal expenses in nature. Learned CIT(A) confirmed the same. At the outset, learned AR fairly submitted that this expense was considered by the learned AO not only for the asstt. year under consideration but also for the Asstt. Years 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06 3 also where it has been disallowed and has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal.

We have gone through the orders of the coordinate benches of this Tribunal in for Asstt. Year 2002-03, ITA No.495/Del/2008 for the Asstt. Year 2004-05; and ITA No.886/Del/2011 for the Asstt. Year 2005-06. For all these years, a consistent view has been taken by the learned AO as well as appellate for this expense is in no way connected to the business of the assessee and it is personal in nature. In the absence of any change of circumstances pleaded, we find it difficult to take a different view taken earlier as well as in the subsequent two years. By respectfully following the same, we dismiss this ground upholding the finding of the learned CIT(A).

Now coming to the question of foreign travel expenses, this issue was also considered for quite a long time, namely, for AY 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2004-05 by Tribunal in ITA Nos.239/Del/2003,ITA No. 4922/Del/2004 for AY 2001-02, ITA 2720/Del.2006 for AY 2002-03 and ITA No.495/Del/2008 for AY 2004-05. Initially for the AY 1999-2000 this issue was remanded to the file of the learned AO for verification of the details submitted by the assessee and by calling the additional details, if any required by the AO and to decide the issue afresh. In all the subsequent years, the Tribunal followed this finding of the coordinate bench for the year 199-2000 and set aside the issue to the file of the learned AO for looking into the matter afresh. The effect giving orders for all these years are filed before us and they form part of the record from page 73 to 78 of the paper book. We have perused the orders. In all these years, learned AO accepted the details furnished by the assessee and deleted the foreign travel expenses. At no point of time any part of this travel expense was found to be either bogus or for non business purposes nor was there any necessity to disallow