COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS CHEMET, 2001 PTD-BOMBAY-HIGH-COURT-INDIA 3602 (1999)

Income-tax--

------Business expenditure‑‑‑Disallowance of expenditure‑‑‑Travel expenses of employees‑‑‑Miscellaneous expenses and local and other conveyance expenses of employees on tour for conducting assessees business‑‑‑Not travel expenses within the meaning of R.6D‑‑‑Are to be excluded from computation of disallowance under R.6D‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961‑‑ Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, R.6D.

Miscellaneous expenses and local and other conveyance expenses which are incurred by the employees on tour for conducting the assessee's business cannot be considered as travelling expenses of the employee under rule 6D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Hence, these amounts are to be excluded while computing the disallowance under rule 6D.

CIT v. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. (1993) 114 CTR 56 (Bom.) fol.

R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner.

S.M. Lala for the Assessee.

JUDGMENT

MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.‑‑‑By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income "flax Act, 1961, the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law the Tribunal was right in directing the Income‑tax Officer to exclude the miscellaneous expenses and local and other conveyance expenses from the computation of the disallowance under rule 6D of the Income‑tax Rules?"

The facts relevant for the purposes of this reference are as under:

The controversy in this case pertains to the assessment years 1980‑81 and 1981‑82. The assessee‑firm is engaged in the business as commission agents and brokers for chemicals and dyes. In its assessment for the assessment years 1980‑81 and 1981‑82, the assessee claimed deduction on account of miscellaneous expenses and local and other conveyance expenses from the computation of disallowance under rule 6D of the Income -tax Rules, 1962 ("the rules"). The Income‑tax Officer disallowed the same and included the local conveyance expenses and miscellaneous expenses incurred by the employees at the places visited by them. On appeal. the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessee and directed the income‑tax Officer to take into account only the total expenses for the purposes of applying rule 6D to exclude the expenses of conveyance and miscellaneous expenses. It was directed that the Income -tax Officer should obtain particulars of the salaries of the employees and the places visited by them and thereafter work out the correct disallowance. The appeal of the Revenue against the above order was rejected by the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal") Hence, this reference.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The controversy in the above question now stands concluded by the decision of this Court, dated April 8, 1993, in Income‑tax Application No.40 of 1992 (CIT v. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. (1993) 114 ITR 56 wherein it has been held that the local conveyance expenses and other actual expenses .which are incurred by the employee on tour for conducting the assessee's business cannot be considered as traveling expenses of the employee under rule 6D of the Rules.

In view of the above, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was right in directing the Income‑tax Officer to exclude the miscellaneous expenses and local expenses from the computation of disallowance under rule 6D of the Rules. Accordingly, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Reference disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

M.B.A./355/FC

Order accordingly.