PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 29/08/2016 passed by CIT(A)-37, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in fact and in law while confirming disallowance of Foreign Travel Expense of Rs.7,33,129/-.

2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in fact and in law while confirming disallowance of expense of bad debts amounting to Rs.2,92,710/-

3. That each ground of appeal is independent and without prejudice to the other.

Date of Hearing 26.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2018 2 ITA No. 5323/Del/2016

3. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing emergency relief and rescue services. The services of the Assessee are mainly availed by foreign tourists visiting India whereby in case of any medical emergency requiring immediate attention, they are picked from the place and provided medical facilities at the nearest available medical centre. The assessee filed is return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 25/9/2012 by e-filing declaring income of Rs.5,88,50,470/- with Carry forward of Loss in current year of Rs.59,15,028/-. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer on 25/02/2015. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer made following disallowances: a) Disallowance on a/c of travel expenses 9,71,755/- b) Disallowance on a/c of bad debts 2,92,710/-

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5. The Ld. AR submitted that in respect of foreign travel, the same was conducted as to meet various Insurance Companies outside India specially in London(UK) and Netherlands (Amsterdam). The Ld. AR submitted that the evidences such as visiting cards of the Foreign company officials were produced before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR submitted that the expense for foreign travel by Ms. Daljeet Kimberley & Sh. Parikshit Mahajan was incurred for attending a conference at Lisbon. The bills raised by M/s ITIC who conducted the conference which was attended by Director were also provided to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The Directors of the assessee company visited foreign countries for further business interest of the company which includes visiting new Insurance Offices to procure business, visiting existing Insurance Companies for follow up, for re-concealing of 3 ITA No. 5323/Del/2016 accounts and follow up recovery of dues and settlement of recoverable amounts. The Ld. AR further submits that no disallowance in this respect was made in the earlier years or in the subsequent year 2013-14 by the Revenue Authorities. The said expenses were always allowed by the Revenue Authorities. The Directors do not have any personal interest in the countries visited other than business of the assessee company. As relates to Ground No. 2, the Ld. AR submitted that provisions for bad debts are in-fact bad debt and have been written off during the year. The details were filed before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR further submitted that all the parties in the list are foreign parties and they have not paid the dues. The assessee company was of the opinion that these have become irrecoverable in spite of reminders by telephone or by e-mails etc. The Ld. AR further submits that any litigation in this regard would not have been economically and in that view, the amount was written off by the assessee in this year.

5. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). The Ld. DR further submitted that the bad debts are not actually bad debts but provisions for bad debts which was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A).

6. We have heard all the parties and perused all the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that as related foreign travel expenses, the assessee has submitted all the documents before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). The assessee has given a detailed explanation in respect of the foreign travel for the purpose of business of the company only. Therefore, both the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate this factual aspect. Ground No. 1 is allowed.

7. As relates to Ground No. 2, the same are not bad debt but are provisions for bad debts and thus the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) has rightly disallowed the same. In-fact, the Assessing Officer has given the categorical finding that expenses with respect to which provisions are not explained by the 4 ITA No. 5323/Del/2016 assessee and correspondence to those parties does not have any reply from the parties. The CIT(A) further elaborated it by saying that there is no correspondence which shows that or demonstrate that conditions enshrined in Section 36(2) have also been fulfilled by the assessee. Thus, it is the provisions and not bad debt which is written off. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Thus, Ground No. 2 is dismissed.

8. In result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27 th March, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- (R. S. SYAL) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27/03/2018 Copy forwarded to:

1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT

4. CIT(Appeals)

5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 5 ITA No. 5323/Del/2016 Date

1. Draft dictated on 26//2018 PS

2. Draft placed before author 26/03/2018 PS

3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member

.2018 JM/AM

4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM/AM

5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 27.03.2018 PS/PS

6. Kept for pronouncement on PS

7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 27.03.2018 PS

8. Date on which file goes to the AR

9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.

10. Date of dispatch of Order.