GODARA FILLING STATION,BHIWANI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3066/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 August 2025AY 2018-2019Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the expenditure was for self-consumption and not paid to a third party, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not warranted. The factual position went unrebutted by the revenue.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 challenged the disallowance of tanker expenditure of Rs. 8,36,382 paid in cash. The assessee claimed the expenditure was for self-consumption and not to a third party.

What were the issues?

Whether cash payment for tanker services used for self-consumption violates Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 19.08.2025Pronounced: 19.08.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074191197(1) dated 07.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Learned counsel representing assessee presses for it’s sole substantive grievance directed against both the lower authorities respective findings disallowing tanker expenditure payment of Rs.8,36,382/- for the sole reason that the same had been paid in cash in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee’s case in this factual backdrop is that the impugned sum was not paid to any third party as it had utilized Godara Filling Station it’s tanker services for self-consumption only. This clinching factual position has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. I therefore find no merit in the impugned disallowance since no expenditure has been incurred by the assessee herein in cash involving a third party. Deleted accordingly.

4.

No other grounds or argument has been pressed before the tribunal.

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →