EDIT SYSEMS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(1)(3), MUMBAI

This appeal filed by the assessee on 13.12.2011 is against the order of the CIT (A)-16, Mumbai dated 20.09.2011 for the assessment year 2008-2009. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:- “1. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of foreign travel expenses aggregating to Rs. 2,07,347/- on the alleged ground that the appellant was not able to submit any documentary evidence to prove that the said expenditure was incurred for the purpose of business of the appellant.

During the first appellate proceedings, on finding that the assessee does not have any evidence in support of business nature of the expenditure, CIT (A) confirmed the addition. Para 3.3.1 of the CIT (A)‟s order is relevant in this regard. Aggrieved, assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities.

On the other hand, Ld DR for the Revenue relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities.

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material placed before us, we find, the said para 3.3.1 of the CIT (A)‟s order is relevant in this regard. Considering the significance and for the sake of completeness of this order, the said para 3.3.1 of the CIT (A)‟s order is extracted as under:- “3.3.1. I have carefully considered the contention of the appellant company as well as carefully gone through the available documents on record. I find that the appellant before the Ld AO did not submit any documents as regards to the justification with the directors visit to various countries. The Ld AO found the director of the appellant company visited the several countries and met different faculties and the head of the department and business managers of the universities to expose the possibility of the tie up. It was also submitted by the appellant that the appellant entered into a partnership with Centrum Associates Ltd on 25.09.2010, a period which does not pertain to year under consideration. The Ld AO food that the appellant is not able to produce any letters or correspondence to show that they were invited to those universities for a possible tie up. In view of this, I find that the appellant was not able to discharge its onus to prove that the expenditure in question was for the purposes of the appellant‟s business. The appellant filed certain correspondence after the date of hearing, however, which does not through any light on the fact that the appellant was invited to visit the university. On the contrary, it shows that that the appellant was already in that country to visit the university. Further, the documents were not before the Ld aO and the appellant had also not fled the application for admission of the same under Rule 46A, the evidence cannot be admitted at this stage. The addition made by the Ld AO is accordingly confirmed. This ground of appeal