TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 68
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ermined at Rs.2,13,419/- by making various additions/disallowances. One of the disallowance made by the A.O. was with respect to 1/4th of foreign travel expenses for the reason that the assessee did not furnish complete details. 3. Thereafter on verification of records, the A.O. noticed that assessee had claimed foreign travel expenses of Rs.8,55,759/-. To verify the genuineness of the foreign travel expenses, the A.O. reopened the assessment u/s. 147.According to the A.O. since there was no compliance by the assessee he passed assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 26-12-2008 wherein he disallowed the foreign travel expenses of Rs.8,55,759/- and determined the income at Rs.6,41,819/-. 4. Aggrieved by the action of A.O.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng expenses. He has only produced the copy of traveling tickets. In absence of full details, it is not verifiable whether total expenses are incurred or not. Therefore, 1/4 th of the above expenses are hereby disallowed which is worked out to Rs.2,12,940/- is hereby disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee." 7. This assessment is reopened by the Assessing Officer on the same facts i.e. non production of details of foreign travel expenses on the basis of audit objection. In view of this, it is to be seen whether the reassessment proceedings for A.Y.2003-04 on the same set of reasons is valid or not. In the original assessment order dated 29-3- 2006, the Assessing Officer has elaborately discussed about not furnishing of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer is accordingly annulled for A.Y. 2003-04." 5. The Revenue being aggrieved is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, the Ld. D.R. submitted that CIT (A) erred in holding that the re-assessment proceedings were based on change of opinion. He relied on the decision in the case of CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC). He thus urged that the order of A.O. be restored. 7. On the other hand the Ld. A.R. submitted that during the course of original assessment proceedings the A.O. after considering the facts and for the reason that the assessee did not furnish the necessary details, disallowed 25% of traveling expenses. The reopening has been made on the basis of the query raised by the revenue audit party. The Ld. A.R. s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pointed by the internal audit party that the recognition which had been granted to the trust had expired on 22- 9-1972 and therefore in the relevant years the trust was not a recognized trust and therefore the donation did not qualify for deduction u/s. 80G. It was this important fact which was overlooked by A.O. and was pointed out by the audit party. It was on this factual error that was pointed out by the audit party, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the reopening was valid in law. Thus the facts of the case relied upon by the Ld. D.R. are distinguishable and therefore the ratio of the decision relied by him are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. In the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320....