Itxa/1975/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai v. M/S Rajmala Export Pvt. Ltd. , Mumbai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1973 OF 2009 Mafatlal Fabrics Limited.. ... Appellant. The Income Tax Officer. ... Respondent. Atul K. Jasani for the appellant. Vimal Gupta for the respondent. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused appeal. 2.The question sought to be raised in this appeal is considered by the Tribunal in para-10 of the impugned order reading as under: �After hearing both the sides, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Learned CIT(A). Admittedly, the assessee was unable to file any evidence to substantiate the nature of services rendered by IL & FS. We further find that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide its reply dated 21.12.2005, which was filed on 23.12.2005 had submitted that professional fees of Rs.73 lakhs paid to L & FS on behalf of M/s.Mafatlal Industries and the assessee had substantial trading activity with that company. In our opinion, if the assessee had paid the amount on behalf of Mafatlal Industries, the same is to be recovered from Mafatlal Industries and cannot be claimed as a business expenditure in the hands of the assessee company. It is well settled law that for claiming any expenditure as a deduction, the onus is on the assessee to substantiate wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. In the instant case, the assessee failed to discharge its onus by proving that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business of the assessee company. Therefore, the order of Learned CIT(A) does not suffer from any infirmity and the same is therefore upheld. The grounds by the assessee are therefore dismissed.� 3.The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are based on appreciation of evidence on record. No substantial question of law is involved. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.