The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/S.d. C. Silk Mills Private Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1923 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.D. C. Silk Mills Private Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Jitendra Jain with Ms.Sutapa Saha for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 3[rd] February, 2010 P.C. : 1.The basic question which arises in the present appeal pertains to a dis-allowance of an amount of Rs.21.66 lakhs by the assessing officer, which was claimed by the assessee on account of foreign traveling expenses. The aforesaid amount was disclosed in the books of account of the assessee in the course of regular assessment for assessment years 1995-96-, 1996-97 and 1997-98. Based on a search, an addition was sought to be made by the assessing officer during the course of a block assessment. It appears that a Director of the assessee had made a statement during the course of search that the amount has been incurred towards traveling expenses of his spouse but this statement was retracted. The Tribunal has held that admittedly no evidence was found as a result of the search to indicate the inadmissibility of the traveling expenses. The statement which was made by the Director, as already noted, was retracted. Hence, while directing deletion of the dis-allowance of Rs.21.66 lakhs, the Tribunal clarified that its decision should not be construed to mean that the dis-allowance of foreign traveling expenses cannot be made at all in the regular assessment of income as well on the basis of the statement recorded by the director. The Tribunal was concerned only about the connotation of undisclosed income under the scheme of block assessment. In view of the finding of the Tribunal that there was no evidence found during the course of search to indicate that the expenses were inadmissible and having regard to the clarification of the Tribunal noted earlier, we do not find any substantial question of law would arise in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.)(Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)