SANDHU ROADLINES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 10(2), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that lease rentals can be booked based on reasonable certainty and estimation, referencing previous orders and case law. It deleted the disallowance of lease rent expenses and estimated other related expenses at 5%.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed lease rent expenses for trucks. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of these expenses, citing discrepancies and lack of proof of payment and filing of returns by lessors. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance for certain lessors but deleted it for others.
What were the issues?
Whether lease rent expenses claimed by the assessee were allowable deductions, and whether other transportation-related expenses could be estimated.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT901 citing245 ITR 428 · 2000 · SC · Read judgment
- Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT196 citing24 ITR 481 · 1953 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM
आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM :
This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 is directed against the CIT(A) - 6, Pune’s order dated 15/05/2017 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A) -6/ITO, Wd. 10(2)/114/2016-17 involving proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Sandhu Roadlines Pvt. Ltd 2. The assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action disallowing its lease rent expenses of Rs.38,88,0000/-. The CIT(A)’s detail discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect reads as under.
“5.1 Lease rental expenses: The appellant had debited an amount of Rs.76,74,000/- towards lease rental for the trucks taken on lease from various parties during the year. The AO noticed that the appellant has shown creditors for lease rental to the tune of Rs.3,13,09,051/-. In view of this discrepancy, the AO made further inquiries and found that the expenses claimed of Rs.76,74,000/- during the year pertain to the persons covered u/s 40A(2). Mr. Harpeet Singh, had leased the Scorpio to the company and the lease rents were remained payable over the years. The AO holding that the use of Scorpio for the business purpose of the assessee was not established and therefore disallowed the same even though evidence in the form of income tax returns, showing the lease income was filed before the AO. The AO disallowed the lease expenses claimed in respect of Balwant Singh (Rs.13,44,000/-) and Kashmir Singh (Rs.25,44,000/-) as the parties did not file any returns and the appellant did not produce the RC books of the trucks taken on lease from them. As regards the lease rentals to M/s Patna Roadlines and M/s Sandhu Roadlines, the expenses were allowed as the returns of income filed by them were produced.
5.1.1. The appellant during the course of appeal proceedings produced the Income Tax return filed by Harpeet Sandhu. Though Scorpio may not be involved in the transportation of goods but it would still be needed for general purpose of transportation. Considering these facts, there is no substance or merit in denying the lease rentals. In respect of Mr. Balwant Singh, the appellant had filed a lease agreement for taking four of his vehicles on lease. The appellant also filed the revenue earned and expenses incurred on the vehicles taken on lease. It is a fact that the lease rentals are not being disbursed to the concerned vehicle owner for Sandhu Roadlines Pvt. Ltd years together and no returns are filed by Mr. Balwant Singh and Mr. Kashmir Singh took authenticate the lease rentals. In the absence of the income tax returns and also considering the fact that there is no actual disbursement of the rental amounts, the action of the AO has to be upheld in their cases. As a result, the addition of Rs.38,88,000/- is upheld and an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- is deleted.
The Assessee’s neat substantive grounds seeks to delete trip expenses, repairs/maintenance, tyre/tube, diesel/fuel expenses disallowance of Rs.32,37,945/-, Rs.88,72,680/-, Rs.26,95,515/- and Rs.1,17,69,147/-; respectively.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival pleadings and find from a perusal of the case records that there are recurring issues only. This tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order for A.Y.11-12 passed in asseesse’s appeal No.1153/PN/15 has already settled the issue against the department that it had indeed availed vehicles on lease involving related parties by way of agreement executed much earlier having continues operation all along. Learned co-ordinate bench further disallowed similar nature of expenditure at an estimated rate at 5% only. We conclude in this factual backdrop that the Assessing Officer had indeed found the assessee to have debited lease rentals on provisional basis representing unascertained liability. Case law Chainrup Sampatram v/s CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC) holds that an expenditure could very well be booked at its first sign based on reasonable certainty. Their lordships further hold in Bharat Earth movers v/s CIT 245 ITR 428 (SC) that such an item in the nature of a provision could very well be claimed as deduction; based on reasonable estimation(s),
Sandhu Roadlines Pvt. Ltd although it is actually paid on a future date. We accordingly delete the assessee’s first disallowance of Rs.38,88,000/-in issue.
The factual position is no different qua the assessee’s trip expenditure repair/maintenance, tyre/tube and fuel claims which are indeed a part of its day today transportation business. We therefore take cue from the learned co-ordinate bench’s very order(s) to estimate the impugned disallowance(s) @ 5% qua all these heads. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. It is further made it clear that wherever the CIT(A) has himself estimated or upheld 5% disallowance regarding these expenditure heads, the same shall stand confirmed with a rider that the impugned estimation shall not be treated as a precedent.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 12th day of May, 2022.
More judgments on Section 40A(2)
- Bellsonica Auto Component India Private… vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), GurgaonITA 1041/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income… vs M/S. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt…ITA 2692/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt Ltd…ITA 2691/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Private… vs DCIT, Circle 11(1), KolkataITA 1033/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2021-2022
- Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Private… vs DCIT, Circle 11(1), KolkataITA 1032/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2020-2021
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026