2021 (4) TMI 465

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellate Tribunal, Chennai,"A" Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal), the assessee has filed the above appeal. 2.1 The assessee filed its return of income in respect of the assessment year 2006-07 on 31.10.2005 admitting a total income of Rs. 6,33,20,125/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 31.12.2007. While completing the above said assessment, the Assessing Authority, along with other additions, disallowed the foreign travel expenses to the tune of Rs. 3,36,739/- incurred in respect of Mrs. Swetha Reddy alleged to be an employee of the company on the ground that she was the wife of the appellant. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the expenses incurred by the appellant for foreign travel to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s made on account of expenditure incurred and claimed on foreign travel u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act by the employee few the firm Mrs. Swetha Reddy? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order of the lower authorities to the effect that the expenses incurred on foreign travel and claimed by the appellant under section 37 of the Act be restricted to 1/5th of the total amount claimed?" 4. Ms. Sri Niranjani Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the assessee had produced the details with regard to the salaries, bonus and group gratuity in respect of Mrs. Swetha Reddy for the financial year 2004-2005, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal observed that no application has been filed before the Tribunal to admit the said documents. That apart, the Tribunal also observed that the evidence filed before it was not sufficient to prove that Mrs. Swetha Reddy was an employee of M/s.Shoetek Agencies for the reason that there was nothing on record to establish as to when she was appointed and what was her salary etc. When the assessee is contending that Mrs. Swetha Reddy is an employee of M/s.Shoetek Agencies, the burden lies on the assessee to establish the said contention. The issue whether Mrs. Swetha Reddy was an employee of M/s.Shoetek Agencies or not is a question of fact and is a matter for evidence and th same was decided against the assessee by the Tribunal as well as....