Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. M/S Hero Cycles Ltd., Ludhiana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: 02.02.2015 LT.A.No.54 of 1999 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ...Appellant Versus M/s Hero Cycles Ltd., Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK HEMANT GUPTA ©HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? |2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present :Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Aalok Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. | HEMANT GUPTA, J. (QRAL) The Revenue 1s in appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax|Act, 1961 (for short “the Act’) aggrieved against the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short ‘the|Tribunal’) on 12.05.1998 relating to the assessment year 1988-89. The Revenue|- appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law: (1),Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theITAT was right 1n holding that Disallowance of Medical expensesof a Director of the Assessee Company was not covered U/s40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, without answering the question asto whether reimbursement of medical expenses is part of salary.ITAT was right 1n holding that Disallowance of Medical expensesof a Director of the Assessee Company was not covered U/s40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, without answering the question asto whether reimbursement of medical expenses is part of salary.(2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theITAT was right in law in deleting Disallowance of Camp Officeexpenses of Rs.73694/- without there being any evidence onrecord that Directors' Wives accompanying their husbands onbusiness tours had any participative role?ITAT was right in law in deleting Disallowance of Camp Officeexpenses of Rs.73694/- without there being any evidence onrecord that Directors' Wives accompanying their husbands onbusiness tours had any participative role? In respect of first substantial question of law, learned counsel for|the respondent-assessee relies upon a judgment of this Court inPorritts &Spencer (Asia) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 175 Taxman 533bwherein it has been held that the medical re1mbursement expenses are part of thesalary covered under Section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the said decision, the first substantial question of law|does not arise for consideration and 1s answered against the Revenue. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon judgments of Kerala| High Court as well as Bombay High Court, reported asRam Bahadur ThakurLtd. Vs. Commissioner of IncomeATax (2003) 261 ITR 390andCommissionerof IncomeATax Vs. Bhor Industries P. Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 319respectively tocontend that the travelling expenses of the Directors’ wives would be admissibleif it is for business purposes. We find that even the second substantial question|of law again does not arise for consideration of this Court. The Tribunal has|returned a finding of fact that the accompanying wife of the Director was part oftheir business tour.| Since the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the wives of|the Directors had accompanied their husbands on business tour, therefore, such|finding of fact does give rise to any substantial question of law. Consequently, while answering both the substantial questions of|law in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the Revenue-appellant, thepresent appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA)JUDGE. 0? ODIOILS |Ayjal/Vimal (HARI PAL VERMA),JUDGE