TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 409
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to as 'the Tribunal'). 2. First grievance of the appellant is against 50% adhoc disallowance of Rs. 8,20,927/-and Rs. 2,17,605/- out of business promotion and dress and costume expenses for the assessment year 2007-08 and Rs. 1,56,513/-out of business promotion expenses for the assessment year 2008-09. 3. The reasoning regarding this disallowance vide the assessment order dated 11.12.2009 for assessment year 2007-08, reads as under: "In the P&L A/c, the assesse has debited a sum of Rs. 16,41,845/- under the head business promotion and Rs. 4,35,210/- on account of dress and costume. While verifying the books of accounts, it was noticed that the expenses debited under the head business promotion and dress & costume has been pai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... support in view from the case of CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd.(1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the onus of providing necessary facts in order to avail the deduction under Section 37(1) is on the assessee. If, therefore, the assessee fails to establish the facts necessary to support his claim for deduction under Section 37(1), the claim for deduction of expenditure is not admissible. Further in the case of I.H. Sugar Factory & oil Mils (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR, 293 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where an assesee claims a deduction the onus is on him to bring all material facts on record to substantiate his claim. The assesse did not furnish or produce any evidence as to what was t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be said that even if the taxpayer does not produce any evidence in support of the claim for allowance, the ITO himself independently is to collect evidence and decide that the allowance claimed is baseless having regard to the legitimate business needs of the assessee. It is for the taxpayer to establish by evidence that a particular allowance is justified. The law does not prescribe any quantitative test to find out whether the onus in a particular case has been duly discharged. A decision of the final fact-finding authority is conclusive and binding. As already discussed and also settled by Hon'ble Apex Court that theonus is on the assessee to bring all material facts on record to substantiate him claim. I would also like to quote the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estrict the expenses to 50% of assessee's claim and make a disallowance of Rs. 8,20,927/- and Rs. 2,17,605/- from business promotion and dress and costume respectively." 4. The findings recorded by the Assessing Officer vide the assessment order dated 26.11.2011 for the assessment year 2008-2009 read as under: "During the course assessment proceedings it was noticed that the assessee has incurred an amount of Rs. 10,37,904/-towards business promotion. From the details filed by the assessee, it was noticed that the following expenditure were incurred under the head business promotion. S. Entry date Credit card Date Particulars statement Credit card Amount 1. 17.01.2008 17.01.2008 Expenses at JW Mariot Hotel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw, as the expenses as claimed should have been fully allowed or fully disallowed. He relies on an order of the Tribunal dated 25.02.2015 in ITA no.275/LKW/2010 in the case of Halwasiya Development Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT Range I Lucknow. 7. We do not agree. Requirement of Section 37 is that the expenditure should be wholly and exclusively laid out and expended for the purpose of business. Merely because payments were made through credit card would not show that the expenditure was wholly and fully for the purpose of business. This contention was rightly rejected by the assessing officer, as nature and object of the outgoing has to be also examined. Word 'wholly' refers to quantum of expenditure and word 'exclusively' refers to motive, object ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment years 2007-08 and 200809, respectively, incurred on higher education of Akshay Marwah son the appellant-assessee at London School of Research in the subject/course Entrepreneur Management for Creative Arts. In the assessment year 200708, the appellant assessee had also claimed deduction of expenses of Rs. 1,94,414 incurred by Akshay Marwah on tour and travelling. 9. The assessing officer had disallowed the claims observing that the expenditure incurred was by the father for education of his son. It was not an expenditure wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Several factual findings were recorded by the assessing officer. 10. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee had dra....