GAURI GANESH STEELS,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 335/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 August 2022AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that only loading and unloading expenses were not properly vouched, while freight and vehicle hire expenses had supporting details. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to 10% of loading and unloading expenses.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm, debited expenses for loading/unloading, freight, and vehicle hire. The AO disallowed 10% of these expenses due to self-made vouchers lacking recipient details. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of 10% of certain expenses is justified when only a portion of those expenses lacked proper vouching.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi on 23-03-2022 in relation to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.1,56,234/- being 10% of certain expenses. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in trading activities of MS steel bars. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had debited certain expenses to its Profit and loss account under the heads - Loading and Unloading – Rs.8,15,062/-; Freight expenses – Rs.5,47,115/-; and Vehicle hire expenses of Rs.2,00,172/- totalling to Rs.15,62,349/-. By observing that these expenses were incurred through self-made vouchers on which complete names and addresses of the recipients were not given, the AO disallowed 10% of total expenses, which resulted into an addition of Rs.1,56,234/-. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance, against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

I have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of assessee despite notice. As such, I am proceeding to dispose off the appeal ex parte qua the assessee.

5.

It is seen that the AO made disallowance @10% of the expenses under the heads Loading and Unloading, Freight expenses and Vehicle hire expenses. The assessee categorically stated before the ld. CIT(A) that only loading and unloading expenses were not properly vouched because the persons to whom payments were made was not literate. As regards the Freight expenses, the assessee submitted that all such details were available and provided to the AO. Similar was the position regarding Vehicle hire expenses. In view of the foregoing submissions made by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), I am of the considered opinion that only the expenses under the heading “Loading and Unloading” are not properly vouched. I, therefore, restrict the disallowance at 10% to the Loading and Unloading expenses totalling to Rs.8,15,062/-, which comes to Rs.81,506/-.

6.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05th August, 2022.

Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 05th August, 2022 Satish

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 3. The NFAC, Delhi

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →