Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Bst Sayona Automations P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 20 April, 2015
आयकर अपील य अ
धकरण, मुंबई यायपीठ "एफ", मुंबई ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCHES "F", MUMBAI
सव ी आई.पी. बंसल, या यक सद य, एवं ी एन .के ."ब#लैया, लेखा सद य के सम&
Before Shri I P Bansal, JM, & Shri N K Billaiya, AM
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4339/Mum/2012
( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year :2009-10)
BST Sayona Automations P Ltd., Vs. ACIT 9(1)
805, Sri Krishna , New Link Mumbai
Road, Andheri (W),
Mumbai 400053
PAN :AAACB0444J
(अपीलाथ) /Appellant) (*+यथ) / Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Rashmikant Modi
Respondent by : Shri Surinderjit Singh
Date of Hearing : 20.04.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 20.04.2015
आदे श / O R D E R
Per I P Bansal, Judicial Member :
This appeal is filed by the assessee. It is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 10.05.2012 for A.Y. 2009 -10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
"1. Disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- out of Travelling & Conveyance Expenses: On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Mumbai erred in upholding the addition of Rs.2,22,289/- out of domestic, travelling and conveyance expenses.
The Appellant submits that the addition of Rs.2,22,289/- be deleted.2
ITA No 4339/M/2012 AY:2009 -10
2. Disallowance of Keyman Insurance Premium of Rs.3,22,728/:
On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Mumbai erred in upholding the addition of Rs.3,22,728/- for Keyman Insurance Premium paid by the company for its Managing Director.
The Appellant submits that the addition of Rs.3,22,728/- be deleted.
2. During the course of hearing it was submitted that the issues raised in the appeal for the year under consideration are covered by the order of the Tribunal dated 28.10.2014 in the asessee's own case for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2010-11 in ITA Nos. 7394/Mum/2011 and 4867/Mum/2013 respectively. It was submitted that so far as it relates to the disallowance made on account of travelling and conveyance expenses, the disallowance has been made by the AO @5% and the said action of the AO has been upheld by the learned CIT(A). It is also seen that in the order referred to by the learned AR, the disallowance has been upheld to the extent of 5% as per para 7 of the said order, which is reproduced below:
"7. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that out of travelling and conveyance expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) has excluded the foreign travelling expenses and restricted the disallowance at 5%. We find that such disallowance is reasonable on facts of the case. Therefore, no interference is called for. Rs. 2,28,085/- stands confirmed in A.Y. 2008-09 and Rs. 2,10,578/- stands confirmed in A.Y. 2010-11."
Accordingly, after hearing both the parties, we dismiss this ground.
3. The second issue relates to the disallowance made on account of Keyman Insurance Premium. This issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09 & 2010-11 (supra). The Tribunal vide para 10 of its order has held has under:
10. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below.
"Keyman Insurance Policy" has been explained vide Explantion-1 to Sec. 10(10D) which reads as under: "Keyman Insurance Policy" means a life insurance policy taken by a person on the life of another person who is or was the employee of the first-mentioned person. Sec. 28(vi) provides that Profits and gains of business or profession includes any sum received under a Keyman Insurance policy, including the sum allocated by way of bonus on such policy.3
ITA No 4339/M/2012 AY:2009 -10 All that has to be looked upon is that whether Insurance policy was taken by a person on the life of another person who is or was the employee. As no fact has been brought on record to suggest that the Keyman Insurance Policy was not taken in the name of the employee. It ITA No. 4867/M/2013 ITA No. 7394/M/2011 4 is presumed that the Revenue authorities have accepted that the policy was taken in the name of the employee. Therefore, in our considered opinion any premium paid on such policy is to be allowed as legitimate business expenditure, the same cannot be treated as part of the investment. We, accordingly, set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the premium in both the years as expenditure. Ground No. 2 is accordingly allowed.
After hearing both the parties and respectfully following the aforementioned order of the Tribunal we allow the ground raised by the assessee and delete the addition on this account.
4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of April 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(N K Billaiya) (I P Bansal)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
MUMBAI, Dt : 20th April, 2015
SA
Copy forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The C.I.T, concerned
4. The CIT (A)-concerned
5. The DR, "F" Bench, Mumbai
BY ORDER
//True Copy//
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai