M/S HOOGHLY TRADERS,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-28(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2544/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 February 2020AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee failed to prove exclusive business use of the vehicle. However, it found no excessive element in the claim compared to other assessment years and allowed a lump sum disallowance of ₹1,00,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the disallowance of 25% of vehicle running, repair, and maintenance expenses. Both lower authorities disallowed the expenses alleging personal usage of the vehicle.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of vehicle running and maintenance expenses due to alleged personal use was justified, and if so, to what extent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-09, Kolkata’s order dated 28.06.2019 passed in case No.21/CIT(A)-9/Wd-28(2)/2015-16/Kol, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard Shri Choudhury representing assessee and Shri Khanra appearing at Revenue’s behest. Case file perused.

2.

Delay of ninety one days’ in filing of the instant lis is condoned going by assessee’s solemn averments in petition dated 09.12.2019 explaining reasons thereof to delay in compilation of necessary record and communication gap with the arguing counsel and on account of non objection from the Revenue side. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

1.

M/s Hooghly Traders Vs. ITO, Wd-28(2)Kol. Page 2 3. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action disallowing 25% of vehicle running expenses alongwith repair and maintenance of ₹25,06,933/- coming to ₹6,02,475/-. Suffice to say, both the lower authorities allege personal usage of the motor vehicle for the purpose of involving invoking the impugned disallowance. It is not in dispute that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) indicate any excessive element in the assessee’s claim visi-a- vis earlier and later assessment years. It further transpires that this taxpayer has not been able to discharge its onus of having used the vehicle in question wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. I therefore deem it appropriate that a lump sum disallowance of ₹1,00,000/- out of that in issue of ₹6,02,475/- would meet the ends of justice with a rider that same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other assessment year. Necessary computation to follow as per law.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →