Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for being delayed by 5 days, without condoning the delay. The assessee, engaged in education consultancy, incurred travelling and visa expenses which were disallowed by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A). The assessee also incurred interest expenses on delayed TDS deposit.
Held
The Tribunal decided to decide the appeal on merits after considering the delay, stating that the travelling and visa expenses were genuine business expenditures incurred for the purpose of business, even though paid by sons residing abroad. The ground related to interest on TDS was dismissed as a covered issue.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and whether travelling and visa expenses incurred for business purposes, paid by sons abroad, are allowable.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘C’: NEW DELHI.
(Assessment Year: 2020-21) Parveen Batra, vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(1), D – 82B, Siwad Parea, Muzaffarnagar. Krishna Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur – 302 015 (Rajasthan). (PAN : ABWPB1332M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri R.S. Punia, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 04.03.2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 raising following grounds of appeal :-
1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in not condoning the delay. Kindly condone the delay and treat the appeal as a valid appeal.
2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the disallowance of expenses by Ld. A.O. amounting to Rs.79,400/-. Kindly direct to delete the addition.
That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the disallowance of Travelling and Visa expenses by Ld. A.O. amounting to Rs.15,61,773/-. Kindly direct to delete the addition.”
At the time of hearing, with reference to ground no.1, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ld. CIT (A) has not condoned the delay of 5 days and dismissed the ground raised
by the assessee and other grounds raised by the assessee are allowable as business expenditure and he brought to our notice the relevant facts as under.
3. Assessee is an individual and filed her return of income for AY 2020-21 on 12.02.2021 declaring total income at Rs.72,86,250/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS under Board’s guidelines to examine the issue viz. large commission expenses and low net profit. Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee has declared income from house property, income from business & profession and other sources. The assessee is engaged in the business of education related consultancy to the students willing to go abroad for higher studies from all over India. It has an agreement with Universities desirous of getting students from India and such universities paid commission to the assessee. During the year, assessee has shown large commission expenses towards the payment of commission to various agents employed. After considering the return of income and information submitted by the assessee, the AO observed that assessee has claimed travelling expenses amounting to Rs.16,66,507/- and visa fee expenses of Rs.10,64,315/-.
During assessment proceedings, assessee has submitted details of travelling expenses totaling to Rs.15,61,773/- towards travelling and visa expenses paid by her sons residing abroad. Assessee was asked to substantiate the above expenses. After analyzing the details submitted by the assessee, AO has disallowed the above said travelling and visa expenses to the extent of Rs.15,61,773/-.
Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi and ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay.
On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below.
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that ld. CIT (A) has not condoned the delay of 5 days and dismissed the appeal. After considering the merits of the case, we intend to decide the issue under consideration by ourselves rather than remitting it back to ld. CIT (A). As per the facts brought to our notice, assessee is in the business of consultancy to the students based on the agreement entered by the assessee with various universities who are desirous to get students from India. Accordingly, they paid commission to the assessee which was declared by the assessee in her return of income. We also noticed that assessee has incurred various expenses like commission and other related expenses towards her business. The AO has disallowed the interest payment on delay in depositing of TDS and travelling expenses incurred by the assessee. As far as interest on TDS is concerned, it is a covered issue against the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to dismiss the ground raised
by the assessee in this regard.
8. With regard to travelling expenses, we observed that assessee is in the business of consultancy which requires her to incur certain expenditure relating to travelling as well as visa expenditure to recruit the students to various universities outside India. We observed that assessee has submitted relevant documents relating to travelling and visa expenditure incurred by her in the paper book. As per the record, relevant expenditures are paid by her two sons who are residing abroad. This is connected expenditure incurred exclusively for the purpose of business. Merely because the above expenditures are incurred outside India and paid by her two sons, the AO disallowed the same. Since the above expenditures are incurred solely for the purpose of business, this is an allowable expenditure and assessee has also brought on record that she has settled the above payments to her sons subsequently. That being the case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee is genuine and allowable for the purpose of business. Accordingly, ground no.3 raised by the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 10th day of December, 2025.