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: The first grievance of the assessee firm was the confirmation of the disallowance of Rs. 84,335 out of truck running expenses by the learned CIT(A). The AO observed that the assessee had debited all transportation expenses of its own vehicles to the P&L account, but some expenses were not supported by any vouchers, making them unverifiable for genuineness. Consequently, the AO disallowed 25% of such expenses, amounting to Rs. 84,335. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, noting that while some small repairs were inevitable, expenses such as tips could not be accepted as genuine business expenses without proof. The CIT(A) found the AO's approach fair and reasonable. Upon appeal, the assessee argued that the expenses were reasonable given the nature of the business and past records, and that obtaining vouchers for all expenses from truck drivers was impractical. However, the tribunal found that the expenses lacked external vouchers and included tips to policemen, which are against public policy. Thus, the disallowance of 25% of expenses by the AO was deemed fair and reasonable, and the appeal on this ground was dismissed. 2. Disallowance of Expenses Claimed in the Tanker Running Account: The second grievance involved the disallowance of Rs. 12,75,006 claimed in the tanker running account. The assessee firm engaged in three types of business activities, including transporting corrosive chemicals in its own and third-party vehicles, and claimed repair expenses for tanks mounted on third-party chassis. The AO disallowed these expenses, stating that the assessee failed to prove the existence and ownership of the tanks and the repairs carried out on them. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, noting the lack of evidence proving the existence of serviceable tanks independent of the firm's own chassis and bodies, and the absence of proof for actual repairs carried out. The assessee argued that records indicated the existence of these tankers in the fixed assets schedule and that vouchers for repairs were maintained. The tribunal found that the AO did not verify the affidavit of one of the partners, which explained the ownership and repair responsibilities of the tanks. The tribunal deemed it fit to restore this issue to the AO for further verification and re-adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity to be heard. 3. Disallowance of Bad Debts: The third grievance concerned the disallowance of Rs. 4,51,924 claimed as bad debts. The AO disallowed this claim, stating that the assessee failed to prove that these debts were taken into account in computing the income of the previous year as required under section 36(2) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, noting that the total receipts were not taken to the P&L account, and the assessee did not act as a del credere agent for commission business. Thus, the conditions under section 36(2)(i) were not satisfied. The assessee contended that in certain contracts, it was responsible for collecting dues from customers, making the customers its debtors. Alternatively, the assessee argued that the debts constituted a loss allowable to the firm. However, the tribunal found the CIT(A)'s remarks factually correct and supported by the statement of accounts submitted by the assessee, and thus dismissed this ground. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in part, with the tribunal directing further verification for the tanker running account expenses while dismissing the grounds related to truck running expenses and bad debts.
|
