Facts
The assessee claimed expenses related to mining, site carting, labour, and machinery hire. The Assessing Officer disallowed 1/3rd of these expenses for lack of substantiation and 1/4th of diesel and petrol expenses. The CIT(A) affirmed the AO's order.
Held
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer lacked justification for the disallowance. Considering the assessee's brought forward losses and the potential for nil tax payable even with a 10% reduction, the disallowance was affirmed at 10% of the claimed expenses.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance of expenses by the Assessing Officer was justified due to lack of proper substantiation and whether the quantum of disallowance should be reduced considering the assessee's overall financial position.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
(Assessment Year: 2014-15) Raj Quarry, The Deputy Commissioner Vs. C/o Ishan Mahendrabhai Patel, of Income Tax, 39, Parkhill, Circle-1(3), Near Heavens Park, Vadodara. Ramdevnagar, Ahmedabad-380015. [PAN :AAOFR3255 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms Urvashi Sodhan, AR Respondent by: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.07.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15.
The assessee filed return of income declaring of total income of (-)Rs.1,35,40,922/-. The assessee claimed expenses of Rs.79,28,708/ on account of Mining at Lease site, Site Carting Expenses, Labour & Providing Expenses and Machinery Hire & Expenses. On examination of the vouchers, Assessing Officer disallowed 1/3rd of the expenses for want of proper substantiation of the expenses.
Further, the Assessing Officer disallowed and amount of Rs.11,44,400/- being 1/4th of the expenses on account of diesel and petrol claimed by the assessee of Rs.45,77,900/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
On going through the arguments of both the parties, we find that Assessing Officer has not given any justification for disallowance. As per the record, the assessee had a loss of Rs.1.35 crores and brought forwarded loss of Rs.27.29 lakhs. Hence, even after considering a reduction in the ad-hoc disallowances to 10%, the net tax payable would be Nil. Accordingly, in the absence of any details from both the parties to determine disallowance as computed by the Assessing Officer, we affirm the disallowance to 10% of the expenses claimed by the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 15.07.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 15.07.2025 MV Raj Quarry Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 3– आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy