What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for fuel losses, but directed a lump sum disallowance of 0.5%. For tanker fuel and maintenance, it restricted the disallowance to 50% due to lack of evidence from both parties.

The assessee claimed deductions for fuel losses due to evaporation/handling and for tanker fuel and maintenance. The lower authorities disallowed these claims. The assessee appealed these disallowances.

What were the issues?

Whether fuel losses due to evaporation/handling and tanker-related expenses are allowable deductions without sufficient evidence. The extent to which such expenses can be estimated for disallowance.

Khyaliram Kedarnath Oil Agency… vs ITO | s.143(3) | ITAT Patna 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, “VIRTUAL HEARING” AT KOLKATA

Before: Shri S. S. Godara, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM]

Hearing: 17.09.2020Pronounced: 17.09.2020

Per Bench These two assessee’s appeals for assessment year(s) 2013-14 and 2014-15 arise against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-Bhaglpur’s separate orders dated 29.02.2016 and 30.12.2016; respectively involving proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s identical condonation petitions for delay of 103 days each on account of compilation of necessary records etc, we hold that the same is neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. The two case are taken up for adjudication on merits.

The assessee’s former identical ground in both these appeals seeks to reverse the lower authorities’ action disallowing fuel losses towards evaporation / handling in running the fuel station business involving figures of ₹1,38,758 & ₹3,20,544/-; respectively. Neither the assessee has been able to prove the impugned losses of evaporation/handling of the fuel by filing necessary evidence nor the Assessing Officer or CIT(A) have considered any instant precedent(s) to this effect. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts and circumstances that a lump

2 ITA Nos.84-85/Pat/2019 KhyaliramKedarnath Oil Agency, AYs- 2013-14 &2014-15 sum disallowance of 0.5% instead of 1% in issue shall meet the ends of justice. The Assessing Officer is directed to compute the necessary disallowance accordingly.

We proceed further and notice that the factual position is not different in the assessee’s latter substantive grounds in both these appeals seeking to delete estimated disallowance(s) of tanker fuel and tanker maintenance expenses since neither of these two parties have discharged their onus by filing the necessary evidence in supportive of their stands. We, therefore, restrict the disallowance to the extent of 50% only qua both these issues. It is made clear that the foregoing estimation shall not be treated as a precedent.

The assessee’s two appeals in ITA No.84 & 85/Pat/2019 are partly allowed in above terms. A copy of the instant common order be placed in the respective case file(s). Order is pronounced in open court on 17th September, 2020 at the time of hearing. (Dr. A.L. Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) *JD. Sr.P.S/Dkp Sr.P.S. िदनांकः- 17/09/2020कोलकाता। आदेशकी"ितिलिपअ"ेिषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-M/s. KhyaliramKedarnath Oil Agency, Bounsi road, Mohahidpur, Bhagalpur.

""थ"/Respondent-ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhagalpur 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT Bhagalpur 4.आयकरआयु"- अपील / CIT (A) Bhagalpur 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध,आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,/ DR, ITAT, Patna 6. गाड"फाइल / Guard file. // By order/आदेशसे, Sr. Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, पाटना ।

KHYALIRAM KEDARNATH OIL AGENCY,BHAGALPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAGALPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments