2012 (2) TMI 66 - AT - Income Tax

Dis-allowance of expenditure towards diesel and oil including repairs and maintenance in respect of poclain Lorry transporter - Held that - In present case, poclain was not operated during the previous year therefore, there cannot be any huge expenditure towards diesel and oil. However some amount of expenditure has necessarily to be incurred to keep the machine in a working condition. Thus, disallowance is definitely called for, however it is reduced to some extent. Expenses relating to crane and poclain Held that - For the reasons already stated in respect of poclain, we find that this nominal disallowance made by the lower authorities is justified. Dis-allowance of machinery maintenance Held that - Assessing authority has disallowed 15% of the claim, which appears to be just & proper, as the assessee was not in a position to explain the expenditure in a convincing manner. Dis allowance of running expenditure of 8.67 lacs out of total 11.67 lacs was made for the reason that differences existed between the expenditure claimed by the assessee vis- -vis the bills produced by the assessee Held that - The assessee is earning his income from operation of lorry transport. Therefore, a reasonable amount of expenditure has definitely to be allowed in respect of running of the trucks. Therefore amount allowed of Rs. 3 lakhs is not sufficient. We modify the allowance to Rs. 6 lakhs and disallow the balance amount Decided partly in favor of assessee.

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee in computing taxable income.
2. Disallowance of expenses incurred on diesel and oil.
3. Disallowance of expenses relating to crane and poclain.
4. Disallowance of machinery maintenance expenses.
5. Disallowance of running expenditure.

Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2001-02 against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XII at Chennai. The grounds raised in the appeal primarily concern the disallowances of various expenses claimed by the assessee in computing taxable income.

2. The first issue revolves around the disallowance of expenses incurred on diesel and oil, including repairs and maintenance for a poclain. The Assessing Officer disallowed a significant portion of the claim due to lack of income from the operation of the poclain. The Tribunal found that while some expenditure was necessary to maintain the machine, the claimed amount was excessive. The disallowance was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh from Rs. 1,75,000, directing the assessing authority to allow the balance of expenditure.

3. The next point of contention involved the disallowance of expenses related to crane and poclain. The assessing authority had disallowed a portion of the claimed expenditure, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal affirmed this decision based on similar reasoning as the previous issue.

4. Moving on to the disallowance of machinery maintenance expenses, the assessing authority had disallowed 15% of the claim, amounting to Rs. 2,17,458. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed this disallowance, stating that the assessee failed to convincingly explain the expenditure. The Tribunal upheld this decision as just and proper.

5. The final issue concerned the disallowance of running expenditure claimed by the assessee. The assessing authority disallowed a substantial amount due to discrepancies in claimed expenses and lack of proper vouchers. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed Rs. 3 lakhs but the Tribunal deemed this insufficient, modifying the allowance to Rs. 6 lakhs and disallowing the balance amount.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the assessing authority to revise the assessment in accordance with the disallowances and allowances specified in the judgment.

← Previous Next →