ANIL GOVINDRAO HOTWAR,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, JALNA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that it is unreasonable to disallow the entire expenditure claimed against hire charges, as some expenditure is necessarily incurred. The lack of evidence does not mean no expenditure was incurred, especially when books of accounts are not mandatory.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual deriving income from JCB hire charges, filed a return declaring a certain income. The Assessing Officer disallowed salary and machinery maintenance expenses, treating the income under 'other sources'. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance for lack of evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether expenditure incurred on salaries and machinery maintenance can be disallowed entirely when income is offered under 'other sources' and supporting evidence is lacking.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 01.01.2018 for the assessment year 2012-13.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income from hire charges of JCB Machines. The return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed on 30.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.2,65,050/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 09.03.2015 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.7,90,150/- after making disallowance of Rs.5,25,100/- on account of salary and machinery maintenance expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same by holding that the rental income was shown not under the head “business” but shown under the head “other sources”. 3. Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the addition on the ground that the appellant had not furnished the details of salaries and machinery maintenance expenses, not produced vouchers in respect of such expenditure nor the mode of payments and also failed to prove that such expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income offered to tax under the head “income from other sources”. 4. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR submits that there is no requirement under law to maintain the books of accounts when the turnover of the assessee does not exceed the prescribed limit. Even in the absence of books of accounts, no income can be earned under the head “other
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026