AMBRISH JALSWAL Vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals by the assessed arise out of the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bareilly, dated 6 -11 -1997 for the assessment years 1995 -96 and 1996 -97. They are taken together and, disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

(2.) GROUND No. I which is common in both the appeals, relates to the alleged non -justification of the Commissioner (Appeals) in restricting the deduction for additional conveyance allowance to Rs. 20,000 as against Rs. 43,229 claimed for assessment year 1995 -96 and Rs. 40,000 as against Rs. 82,061 for the assessment year 1996 -97. In both the cases, the assessing officer observed that the information was sought from the LIC of India which has intimated that the assessed has not furnished any details or given any undertaking that he has actually incurred expenses to the extent of Rs. 43,229 and Rs. 82,061 wholly and exclusively for the purpose of employment. During the scrutiny proceedings also the fact was brought to the notice of the assessed vide different order -sheet entries and also vide detailed notice dated 4 -2 -1997. The assessed replied that the various allowances including the additional conveyance allowance are paid to the development officers of the LIC of India on the basis of appraisal itself which just means that such allowance are determined on the basis of the work done or turnover of insurance premia given by the development officer. Further it has been observed by the assessing officer that the internal circulars of the LIC of India clearly stipulate that in order to get benefit of conveyance allowance/additional conveyance allowance, the Development Officer has to give (i) monthly details of metre reading of his Vehicle and (ii) has to produce bills of repairs and petrol, etc. every month to the employer which has not been given. Against this partial allowance of the additional conveyance allowance, the assessed went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that the additional conveyance allowance in the particular case is not actual reimbursement of expenditure incurred though it cannot be denied that some expenses for traveling on duty is inherent. To be entitled to exemption under section 10(14) it was for the assessed to furnish all necessary evidence that he had actually incurred so much expenditure. Such details have not been furnished or maintained by the assessed. Therefore, estimate has to be made. There is no doubt that while giving the additional conveyance allowance, the employer must keep in mind the reasonableness of actual traveling by the employee. In the absence of any details, the Commissioner (Appeals) estimated Rs. 20, 000 and Rs. 40,000, respectively as reasonable amounts which could have been actually incurred towards traveling by the assessed for the assessment years 1995 -96 and 1996 -97. Feeling dissatisfied against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the assessed is in appeal before the Tribunal.

(3.) WE have heard both the parties, Shri Ambrish Jaiswal, the assessed himself and Shri R.R. Prasad, learned departmental Representative for the revenue. On the basis of written submissions, the assessed contended that the assessing officer had restricted the deduction for additional conveyance allowance to Rs. 10,000 only as against Rs. 43,229 claimed to have been incurred by the assessed. The said deduction was raised to Rs. 20,000 by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Both the authorities have failed to take into account the LIC's internal circulars in the matter. He has relied on the CO Circular Ref. No. Mktg./ZD/10/87 dated 3 -3 -1987 which very explicitly states the various amounts up to which the amount reimbursed on account of additional conveyance allowance presumably incurred to contact and develop the agents for procuring new business has been prescribed. Therefore, he has prayed for exemption of Rs. 35,000 instead of Rs. 20,000 in one case. In other case also similar request has been made. On the other hand, the learned departmental Representative Shri R.R. Prasad relied on the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that no details have been furnished by the assessed and that is why the estimate has been made. The assessed was required to furnish necessary evidence for incurring actual expenses. Hence, no interference with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is called for.