TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (3) TMI 33
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was jusfified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.92,219 made under rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules read with section 37(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" The sixth question as reframed and referred to us by the Tribunal is as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the Modvat scheme of excise duty, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition by the Assessing Officer to the value of the closing stock?" The problem with regard to the first question arises as follows. Claim for allowance was made by the assessee in respect of travel undertaken by its employees outside the headquarters. The assessee's case was that as per su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m is again Rs.750, as per the above sub-rule. The material portion of the said sub-rule, as it stood at the material time is quoted below: "(2) The allowance in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee in connection with travelling by an employee or any other person within India outside the headquarters of such employee or other person for the purposes of the business or profession of the assessee shall not exceed the aggregate of the amounts computed as hereunder: (a) in respect of travel by rail, road, waterway or air, the expenditure actually incurred; (b) in respect of any other expenditure (including hotel expenses or allowances paid) in connection with such travel, an amount calculated at the following rates for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; of the assessee." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Agarwalla appearing in support of the Revenue, relied upon no fewer than two High Court decisions for his clients. The first is the case of CIT v. Coramandel Fertilisers Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 298 (AP). Their Lordships said this, near the end of the judgment: "The actual expenditure incurred on each trip has to be ascertained with reference to the provisions of rule 6D. The unit of expenditure for purposes of rule 6D is the trip but not the individual employee. Therefore, it necessarily follows that the expenditure incurred by the assessee will have to be taken into consideration with referen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt on the days of travel is not spent in one particular previous year, then the amount "saved" cannot be carried forward to the next succeeding previous year for increasing the limit allowable. Such carrying forward requires very special permission and mandate of the Income-tax Act and none such is to be found here. But, if the employee's travel is to be sub-divided even within the same assessment year as per the number of trips undertaken by him and such sub division goes against the interest of the assessee, then for that sub-division also some clear indication or express word must be available in the rule itself. If we were to pursue the argument of such sub-division to the extreme, it might also be argued that even within one trip i....