9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of truck running expenses. 2. Disallowance of expenses claimed in the tanker running account. 3. Disallowance of bad debts. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Truck Running Expenses: - Facts and Findings: The assessee claimed Rs. 3,37,341 as truck running expenses, out of which Rs. 84,335 was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to lack of supporting vouchers. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, stating that some expenses like tips to policemen were against public policy and not wholly for business purposes. - Assessee's Argument: The assessee contended that the expenses were reasonable considering past records and the nature of the business, which made it difficult to obtain vouchers. - Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision, finding the 25% disallowance reasonable due to the lack of proof of genuineness. - Miscellaneous Application: The assessee filed a miscellaneous application to rectify the order, arguing that the Tribunal did not consider past disallowance patterns and the reasonableness of the expenses. The Tribunal modified the disallowance to Rs. 20,000, considering the past history. - Third Member's Decision: The Third Member agreed with the Judicial Member that there was no apparent mistake in the Tribunal's order, and the miscellaneous application was dismissed. 2. Disallowance of Expenses Claimed in the Tanker Running Account: - Facts and Findings: The assessee claimed Rs. 12,75,006 as repair expenses for tankers mounted on third-party chassis. The AO disallowed the claim due to lack of evidence proving the existence and repair of these tankers. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, noting the absence of any evidence during appellate proceedings. - Assessee's Argument: The assessee argued that the tankers were listed in the fixed assets schedule and that vouchers for repairs were maintained. The assessee also submitted an affidavit from a partner, which the AO dismissed as self-serving without cross-examination. - Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal found that both authorities below proceeded on presumptions and restored the issue to the AO for re-examination, directing to verify the affidavit and other contentions. - Miscellaneous Application: The assessee sought rectification, arguing that the Tribunal failed to consider certain facts and contentions. The Tribunal, however, found no apparent mistake and dismissed the application. 3. Disallowance of Bad Debts: - Facts and Findings: The assessee claimed Rs. 4,51,924 as bad debts, which the AO disallowed, stating the assessee did not prove that these debts were taken into account in computing income. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, noting that the total receipts were not credited to the profit and loss account. - Assessee's Argument: The assessee argued that in some contracts, it was responsible for collecting dues, making the customers its debtors. Alternatively, the assessee claimed the amount as a business loss. - Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the authorities' decision, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s remarks. - Miscellaneous Application: The assessee filed for rectification, arguing that the Tribunal did not consider the nature of the debts as remissions/discounts and the method of accounting. The Tribunal recalled its order on this issue for re-adjudication. - Third Member's Decision: The Third Member agreed with the Judicial Member that there was no apparent mistake in the Tribunal's order, and the miscellaneous application was dismissed. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decisions on the disallowance of truck running expenses, tanker running expenses, and bad debts were upheld, with the miscellaneous application for rectification being dismissed for lack of apparent mistakes. The Third Member's concurrence with the Judicial Member's view led to the final dismissal of the miscellaneous application.
|
