M/S MAA TRAVELS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT(OSD) WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

It is noticed that this appeal was originally disposed off on 10/12/2024. None had appeared. The assessee filed a miscellaneous application for recalling of the order dated 09/06/2025 and the assessee represented and the Tribunal was pleased to recall the order. The appeal was originally posted for hearing on 19/11/2025. When the matter was called for hearing on 19/11/2025, it was adjourned to 20/11/2025 at the request of Ld.AR. Then it was adjourned to 02/12/2025 at the request of the Ld.DR. On 02/12/2025 the AR submitted that he would file the necessary paper book, however, till today no paper book has been filed. When the matter was called for hearing today no one represented on behalf of the assessee. Consequently, this appeal being heard ex-parte.

The appeal has been filed belatedly by 29 days. Condonation petition has been filed. The delay being nominal and the reasonable cause has been given for delay, therefore, the delay of 29 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

The assessee is operating a travel agency. In the course of assessment the AO had questioned the petrol and diesel charges as also vehicle and vehicle’s hire charges. The assessee did not produce the evidence before the AO. As the assessee had not provided any evidence before the AO or CIT(A), ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the AO. The assessee admittedly has not made the representation before the tribunal even though on earlier occasion matter have been decided ex-parte.

I have perused the material available on the records. As the assessee is in the business of hiring of vehicles and has paid hire charges there is no room for the assessee to claim the vehicle maintenance and fuel expenses which are the expenses being incurred by owner’s of the vehicle. The assessee has also not provided any details in respect of petrol expenses. As there is no evidence is produced before the AO or before the Ld.CIT(A), obviously, the tribunal would not be able to admit any fresh evidence in view of the bar under Rule 46(A) of the IT Rule. This being so, I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the CIT(A) or AO. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee stands dismissed.