2004 (9) TMI 316 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on jeep.
2. Disallowance of expenses incurred on freight and wages.
3. Disallowance of interest paid by the assessee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Jeep:
The assessee appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 15,083 out of the claimed depreciation of Rs. 90,500 on a jeep. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed 1/6th of the expenditure on maintenance, depreciation, and driver's salary, citing personal use by the partners under Section 38(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, noting the lack of evidence (such as a logbook) to prove exclusive business use. The assessee argued that depreciation should be allowed regardless of the duration of use, citing precedents like Allied Publishers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and CIT vs. Chiranji Lal. However, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), emphasizing the inability of the assessee to rebut the presumption of personal use and the absence of evidence to support exclusive business use.

2. Disallowance of Expenses Incurred on Freight and Wages:
The AO disallowed Rs. 72,000 out of the total expenses of Rs. 3,37,618 on freight and wages, questioning the genuineness of credit balances in the names of four laborers. The assessee failed to produce these individuals for verification. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, doubting the explanation that laborers did not claim their wages for six months, which seemed unreasonable for daily wagers. The Tribunal supported this view, noting the assessee's failure to prove the genuineness and correctness of the outstanding amounts, thereby affirming the disallowance.

3. Disallowance of Interest Paid by the Assessee:
The AO disallowed Rs. 34,125 of the interest claimed by the assessee, who had advanced Rs. 3.50 lakhs interest-free to an associate while paying interest on borrowed funds. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, stating that the assessee failed to prove the business purpose of the advance and that the interest-free advance contradicted the claim of using borrowed funds for business. The Tribunal concurred, noting the assessee's inability to establish that the advance was from interest-free funds and emphasizing the diversion of interest-bearing funds for non-business purposes.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on all three issues.