Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties
 M/s. InterGlobe Aviation Ltd., Ground Floor, Central Wing, Thapar House, 124 Janpath, New Delhi Vs. JCIT, Special Range : 4, New Delhi.
 Chatru Mal Garg Plot No.98, Sector 25, Faridabad, Haryana Vs. ACIT Circle 1 Faridabad
 Baxter India Pvt.Ltd., 5th Floor, Tower-A, Bldg.9, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), New Delhi.
 Sh. Ankit Kapoor, B-102, R.G. City Centre, Plot No. 4, Motia Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-63(4), New Delhi
 Ashish Dham, C-1/2, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Room No.315, B Block, Civic Centre, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi
 Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, H.O.Near Bajrang Bhawan, Delhi Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak.
 Arora & Associates Reality Limited, 131, GF, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi Vs. DCIT CPC Bangalore
 Kiran Sales Private Limited 12/42, Rajauri Garden, New Delhi. Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER Ward 14(3) New Delhi.
 National Housing Bank, Core-5 A, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi

Lalita, C/o K.L. Datta & Company, Vashishtha Plaza 2, Manu Marg, Alwar, Rajasthan Vs. ITO, Ward 42(4), Delhi.
October, 14th 2021

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI
(Through Virtual Hearing)

BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.4307/Del/2019
Assessment Year: 2012-13

Lalita, Vs. ITO,
C/o K.L. Datta & Company,
Vashishtha Plaza 2, Ward 42(4),
Manu Marg,
Alwar, Delhi.
Rajasthan.

PAN: ADGPL2634Q

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA
Revenue by : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 03.08.2021
14.10.2021
Date of Pronouncement :

ORDER

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 5th
February, 2019 of the CIT(A)-50, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2012-
13.

2 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives
income from salary, income from house property and other sources. She filed her
return of income on 28th July, 2012 declaring total income at Rs.7,97,500/-. The
AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30th March, 2015
ITA No.4307/Del/2019

determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.19,26,845/- wherein he made

the following additions:-

a) i) On account of reimbursement of medical -

expenses Rs.15,000/-
Rs.36,000/-
ii) Washing allowance - Rs.60,000/-

iii) Helper Allowance -

Total - Rs.1,11,000/-

b) From house property for lack of evidence - Rs.3,48,000/-

c)Out of deduction on account of vehicle and interest - Rs.6,71,350/-
on vehicles which was sold

3. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) granted part relief to the assessee and sustained
the disallowance of Rs.1,11,000/- on account of various allowances, an amount of
Rs.2,01,405/- out of the disallowance u/s 57 of the Act in respect of depreciation
and interest on vehicle, an amount of Rs.3,81,600/- out of income from house
property.

4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before

the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:-

“1. That the Id. assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts
and circumstances of the case in disallowing of reimbursement of expenses
and allowances under the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting
to Rupees 110000.00 claimed against salary income as per the following
details and the ld Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals),-15, Delhi has
erred in sustaining the same:-

On account of reimbursement of medical expenses 15000.00

On account of washing allowance 35000.00

On account of helper allowance 60000.00

Total 111000.00

2
ITA No.4307/Del/2019

2. That the Id. assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and
circumstances of the case in disallowing the deduction u/s 57 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 in respect of depreciation of Rupees 488632.00 and interest
on vehicle loans of Rupees 182718.00 totalling to Rupees 671350.00, which
are allowable to be set off against the income earned from plying of
vehicles and included in the return of income and the ld Commissioner of
Income-Tax (Appeals),-15, Delhi has erred in sustaining the same.

3. That the Id. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-15, Delhi has

erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in issuing

the direction u/s 150 (1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for taking the action

in the hands of the appellant as per law, without providing any opportunity

by way of issuing any show cause notice to the appellant, which is against

the principle of natural justice, equity and fair play, thus the direction issued

deserves to be quashed on this account alone.

4. That the ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-15, Delhi has

erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in issuing

the direction in respect of the Assessment Year 2011-12, and upon the issue

which was not before him and does not arise out of the assessment order

under appeal, while deciding the appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13,

thus the ld Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-15, Delhi has exceeded

his jurisdiction in giving the direction u/s 150(1) of the Income Tax Act,

1961 vis-a-vis to take the action in respect of benefit of Rupees 1272000.00

for purchase of flat by the assessee in the Assessment Year 2011-12.

5. That the ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-15, Delhi has

issued the direction u/s 150 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of

the Assessment Year 2011-12, which have already barred by limitation in

view of the provision of section 150(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and

order of hon’ble Supreme Court and others, as on the date of passing of the

appellate order, thus the direction so issued is against the provision of law

and decision of apex court and thus deserves to be quashed.

6. That the ld Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-15 Delhi has

erred in law as well on the facts and circumstances of the case in giving the

direction in respect of purchase of flat, whereby yielding a benefit of

Rupees 1272000.00 to the assessee from the seller of the flat under the

provision of section 56 (2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which

was not in existence in Assessment Year 2011-12 and made effective w.e.f.

Assessment Year 2014-15, thus the direction so issued is against the

provision of law.

7. The assessee reserves her right to add, alter, modify, delete or

amend all or any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of

appeal.”

3
ITA No.4307/Del/2019

5. Ground of appeal No.1 by the assessee relates to the order of the CIT(A) in
confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,11,000/-.

6. After hearing both the sides, I find the assessee has claimed deduction of

medical allowance of Rs.15,000/-, washing allowance of Rs.36000.00 and helper

allowance of Rs.60000.00 which were disallowed by the AO on the ground that

the assessee did not furnish any reply to justify these disallowances. I find, the

ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO by observing as under:-

“4.2 Ground No. 3 of the appeal relates to disallowance of claim of
following allowances aggregating to Rs. 1,11,000/-

Medical 15000
Washing Allowance 36000
Helper Allowance 60000

In the computation of total income, the above allowances have reduced
from the salary income by stating "Exempt Allowance". In her submissions
dated 26.02.15 filed in the course of assessment proceedings no
explanation/justification regarding the above claim of 'Exempt Allowances'
was filed by her. A very specific query was raised by the then Assessing
Officer vide 142(1) notice dated 16.03.2015 to justify the claim of such
exemptions. However, it is a matter of fact and record that assessee did not
respond to the query of the Assessing Officer. As such the then Assessing
Officer disallowed the claim of above exemptions from the salary income.

Submissions put-forth by the assessee in this regard during the course of
appellate proceedings, have been perused. Section 17(2) of the Income- tax
Act, 1961, provides that any reimbursement against medical expenses to an
employee by an employer up to Rs. 15,000 in a year is exempt from tax, -
respective of whether it has been claimed in part or full. However, only the
amount for which proper bills are submitted or Rs. 15,000, whichever is
less, will be considered for exemption.

So far as the facts of the case in hand are concerned, the facts, evidences
and arguments put-forth clearly suggests that this is a case of medical
allowance and not medical reimbursement since no such document
evidencing service contract, evidence suggesting claims lodged by the
assessee with her employer company seeking reimbursement of medical
expenses paid by her and subsequently paid by the employer to the

4
ITA No.4307/Del/2019

assessee. Hence, it is conclusively proved that the amount of Rs. 15000/- is
full) taxable being medical allowance and nothing else. The remaining two
amounts, i.e. Rs.36,000/- and Rs.60,000/- are on account of washing
allowance and helper allowance. No case was made out before the AO to
justify these two claims.

During the course of appellate proceedings, it has been argued that both the
allowances are allowable in terms of the provisions of section 10 (14) read
with Rule 2 BB. However, If is not submitted as to what is the educational
and professional background/education/qualification of the assessee. Copy
of her appointment letter, proving her employment with M/s Mittal
Forgings & Components Private Limited and proving her nature of job with
M/s Mittal forgings and Components Private Limited has not been filed.
Not a single word has been uttered by the assessee either before the
Assessing Officer or during the course of appellate proceedings, to prove
the nature of duties performed by her during her employment with M/s
Mittal Forgings & Components Private Limited. It is not known as to what
is the nature of her job/duties which requires attendance in the office in
specific/special/exclusive 'uniform' to be worn by her for performing her
duties/during office hours in the course of her employment with the
employer company.lt is also not known/made known that such uniform
requires frequent dry-cleaning/specialized cleaning. It is also not made
known that there are other employees in the company which requires
special clothing and special cleaning. Not a single word has been uttered by
the assessee to explain the nature of duties performed by her which in turn
requires the services of a helper. No word has been offered to explain the
nature of duties assigned to her in the course of her employment with M/s
Mittal forgings & Components Private Limited

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
deductions made from the salary income are not available to the assessee.
The same have rightly been disallowed by the Assessing Officer.
Arguments put-forth by the appellant during the course of appellate
proceedings, also do not justify her various claims. Accordingly, the
disallowance of Rs. 1,11,000/- made by the AO is hereby confirmed and
this ground of the appeal is dismissed.”

7. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that identical allowances were

allowed by the AO in the order passed u/s 143(3) in the subsequent years.

Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I

deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to decide

5
ITA No.4307/Del/2019

the issue afresh in the light of his decisions in the subsequent years in the order
passed u/s 143(3) after obtaining necessary details from the assessee on this issue.
The ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

8. So far as ground of appeal No.2 is concerned, I find the same relates to
disallowance of Rs.2,01,405/- on account of depreciation and interest on vehicles.

9. After hearing both the sides, I find, the assessee let out Tata Canter truck
and Toyota Innova car to M/s Mittal Forgings & Components Pvt. Ltd. on a
monthly hire purchase of Rs.21,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively. The AO
disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 57 of the Act amounting to Rs.6,07,350/-
on the ground that the assessee did not furnish the requisite details towards claim
of depreciation and interest by filing the copies of invoice in support of purchase
of vehicles, copies of rent agreement in respect of letting out of the vehicles and
the loan certificate for claiming interest. I find, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action
of the AO on the ground that both the vehicles were given on rent to M/s Mittal
Forgings & Components Pvt. Ltd. at very low rentals and the assessee, in the
process incurred huge loss which has been utilized to set off the income from
house property. According to the ld.CIT(A), no prudent person would enter
into/execute any transaction to incur losses only. Since the assessee could not
give any plausible explanation either before the AO or before him to justify the
letting out of vehicles at lower rentals which are not sufficient to recover
financial cost and depreciation cost, he upheld the action of the AO. It is the

6
ITA No.4307/Del/2019

submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that he has filed the following
details before the CIT(A) which has not been considered by him:-

10. In my opinion, the matter requires a re-visit to the file of the AO to find
out as to the status in the preceding and succeeding years since the two vehicles
were purchased on 27th December, 2010 and 29.09.2011 respectively. The AO
may find out what is the rental income of Toyota Innova and Tata Canter in other
cases to ascertain as to whether the assessee is deliberately entering into an
agreement with a concern just to incur losses so as to set off the same from
income from house property. The AO shall decide the issue as per fact and law
and after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No.2
raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

7
ITA No.4307/Del/2019

11. So far as grounds No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, the grievance of the
assessee is to the order of the CIT(A) in giving a direction u/s 150(1) of the IT
Act to the AO for taking action in the hands of the assessee as per law.

12. After hearing both the sides, I find, the assessee, in the return of income,
declared income from house property against which she claimed deduction on
account of payment of interest. In absence of details and documents, the AO
disallowed both statutory deduction u/s 24 and interest paid on housing loan. The
ld.CIT(A), after calling for a remand report from the AO, allowed the claim of
statutory deduction and interest on housing loan at Rs.3,48,000/- and allowed the
appeal. However, on the basis of the remand report of the AO wherein it is stated
that the assessee has purchased the property on 01.07.2010 for Rs.22 lakhs, but,
for the purpose of obtaining home loan against the said property, the bank has
determined the value of the property at Rs.34.72 lakhs, directed the AO u/s 151
of the Act to take necessary action as per law for assessment year 2011-12 in
respect of benefit of Rs.12,72,000/- obtained by the assessee at the time of
purchase of property. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that for applicability
of section 150(1), the record of proceedings must be before the appropriate
authority. If there are no proceedings before it or if the assessment year in
question is also not a matter which would call for consideration before higher
authority, section 150 of the Act will have no application. It is also his
submission that such proceedings can be initiated only within the period of

8
ITA No.4307/Del/2019

limitation prescribed u/s 149 of the Act, if any, available at the time of order
which was subject matter of appeal. It is also his submission that there is no
provision under the Act by which the difference between value of the property
adopted by the bank for sanctioning the loan and the actual cost of the property
can be subjected to tax.

12.1 I find some force in the above argument of the ld. Counsel. The
assessment year involved in the instant case is 2012-13. The property was
purchased on 01.07.2010 for Rs.22 lakhs. The assessee has obtained housing
loan from the bank. The bank has valued the property at higher price for
sanctioning the loan. Under these circumstances and in absence of any evidence
with the AO or the CIT(A) that either the recipient has received any extra money
or that the assessee has paid anything over and above what is stated in the sale
deed, merely on the basis of valuation report by the bank for sanctioning of the
loan cannot be a ground for giving a direction to the AO to reopen the assessment
for another assessment year which was not the subject matter of appeal before the
CIT(A). Even otherwise also, the CIT(A), in the instant case, passed the order on
5th February, 2019. On this date, the time limit for reopening of assessment u/s
149 for the assessment year 2011-12 was not available as the period of reopening
the assessment for preceding six assessment years as on the date of passing of
order by the CIT(A) was available only upto assessment year 2012-13. The
various decisions relied on by the ld. Counsel supports the proposition that the

9
ITA No.4307/Del/2019

order passed by the CIT(A) issuing direction u/s 150(1) is barred by limitation.

Therefore, the grounds of appeal No.3, 4 and 5 by the assessee are allowed.

13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes.

The decision was pronounced in the open court on 14.10.2021.

Sd/-

(R.K. PANDA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 14th October, 2021
dk

Copy forwarded to :

1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR

Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

10

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2021 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting