LAXMI HYDROCOLLOIDS,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1489/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 September 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 8,38,614/- as Electric Expenses was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished the electricity bill for May 2016 along with the ledger account of electricity expenses. Although the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount for want of separate proof of payment, and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed this, the Tribunal found that the proof of payment (electricity bill) was now on record. The Tribunal directed that the disallowance made be deleted. The ratio decidendi is that once documentary evidence like an electricity bill and ledger account is produced and its genuineness is not conclusively disproven, disallowance on the sole ground of 'want of separate proof of payment' is unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Laxmi Hydrocolloids, filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.06.2024, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal challenged the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 8,38,614/- towards Electric Expenses. The Assessing Officer had disallowed this amount for want of separate proof of payment, a decision upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) on the same grounds. The assessee had submitted an electricity bill for May 2016 and the ledger account of electricity expenses. The genuineness of the electricity bill was disputed by the Ld. DR.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 8,38,614/- as Electric Expenses is justified, considering the submission of an electricity bill and ledger account by the assessee? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 69C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the electricity bill for May 2016 and the ledger account of electricity expenses were furnished, and the disallowance was made without considering this documentary evidence. The assessee relied on the submission of these documents as proof. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the Ld. DR, disputed the genuineness of the electricity bill submitted by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Drop Singh Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

- Delay condoned.

The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated 27.06.2024, under section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2017-

18.2.

The solitary issue raised by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming addition of Rs.8,38,614/- being Electric Expenses, ignoring the submission and documentary evidences.

3.

Heard the arguments

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →