Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
(A.Y : 2009-10) Smt Avani Devang Sanghavi Vs. ITO., Ward-25(3)(3) P-602, Panchsheel Garden C-11, R.No.304, 3rd Floor Mahavir Dahanumar Pratyakshkar Bhavan Wadi, Kandiwali (W) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 067 Bandra (E) PAN : APAPS2231L Mumbai – 400 051 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Revenue by : Mrs Beena Santosh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 15/02/2017 घोषणा की तारीख Date of Pronouncement : /02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER C.N.PRASAD (J.M.) : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-45, Mumbai dated 18.03.2015 for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds : “
1.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 45, Mumbai [“Ld.CIT(A)”] erred in confirming the action of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(3) (3), Mumbai [“the A.O.”] in Smt.Avani Devang Sanghavi Rs.21,00,008/-, claimed as business development expenses, as deduction while computing income of the Appellant. 1.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such disallowance was called for. 1.3 Without prejudice to the above and, alternatively, it is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, this amount was liable to be reduced from the gross commission income. 2.1 The Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in disallowing Rs. 2,77,591/-, being travelling expenses, as deduction while computing income of the Appellant. 2.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such disallowance was called for. 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in disallowing Rs. 4,150/-, being interest on LIC loan, as deduction while computing income of the Appellant. 3.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such disallowance was called for.”
2. At the outset ld. counsel for the assessee submits that additional evidences were submitted in the form of licence issued by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority for conducting Insurance business as an agent, letter issued by Metlife Insurance Company engaging the assessee as financial advisor and the termination letter issued by the very same Metlife Insurance Company terminating the agency contract with the assessee and allowing the assessee to work for any other company, letter issued by Birla Sun Life Insurance and various other documents showing that the assessee was into insurance business Smt.Avani Devang Sanghavi in support of her claiming business development expenses. Similarly, additional evidences were also produced by the assessee in respect of travelling expenses. Ld. Counsel submits that assessee filed petition for admission of additional evidences and all these evidences would go to the root of the matter in respect of disallowances made by the assessing officer. It was also submitted that these documents remained to be filed before the lower authorities as the assessee does not have the benefit of a regular tax consultant to help her and therefore these documents could not be filed. Therefore, it is submitted that the same may be admitted and restore to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication of the matter.
The Ld. DR has no serious objection in admitting additional evidences. However, ld. DR submitted that since these additional evidences were not furnished before the lower authorities, the matter may be restored to the file of the assessing officer for fresh examination of the issue.
On hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that the additional evidences produced by the assessee should go to the root of the matter and the assessee was prevented with sufficient cause in filing these documents before the lower authorities. Therefore, we admit the additional evidences and remit to the file of the assessing officer who shall decide the issue in ground no.1.1 to 2.2, afresh and in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Smt.Avani Devang Sanghavi
Coming to the last ground i.e. 3.1, in respect of the disallowance of Rs.4,150/- relating to interest on LIC loan, the counsel for the assessee submits that this issue may also be restored to the file of the assessing officer for fresh examination.
On hearing both the sides, we are of the view that this issue also to be examined by the assessing officer afresh. Thus it is restored to the file of the assessing officer.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 22nd day of February 2017.