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

ITA 751/KOL/2024

AI Insights

M/s. Maa Travels appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had confirmed the disallowance of certain expenses claimed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary contention was regarding the disallowance of Rs. 27,21,353/- claimed under 'Petrol & Diesel Charges', which was questioned by the Assessing Officer during scrutiny. The assessee argued that the expenses were legitimate and provided a list of vehicles and related expenses. However, the Tribunal noted that the vehicles were diesel-operated, yet petrol expenses were claimed, and no concrete evidence was provided to substantiate the claims. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower authorities that the assessee failed to prove the authenticity of the claimed expenses.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 27075 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Fuel Charges
• Section: 143(2)

Judgement Text

" ITA No. 751/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) M/s. Maa Travels 1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. No. 751/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 M/s. Maa Travels,…………………………..…………Appellant No. 399/A, 1st Stage, 3rd Phase, West of Chord Road, Manjunath Nagar, Bangalore-560010, Karnataka [PAN:AATFM2475Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD),…………………………………………………...Respondent Ward-1(1), Kolkata Appearances by: N o n e, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: November 21, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order: December 10, 2024 O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 10th January, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The appeal is time barred by 29 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition ITA No. 751/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) M/s. Maa Travels 2 saying that the assessee has not received order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) physically. Therefore, he is not able to approach the ld. Authorized Representative, thereafter again approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 29 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons mentioned in the affidavit, I am inclined to condone the delay since the assessee has established sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence the delay is condoned. 4. The assessee runs a travel and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs.10,44,665/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee furnished the details of balance-sheet, profit & loss account and other relevant documents. The said documents were examined by the ld. Assessing Officer. On examination of the accounts, it is seen that the assessee-company debited a huge amount of Rs.27,21,353/- under the head “Petrol & Diesel Charges”. The assessee was issued a letter dated 04.12.2017 raising query regarding huge expenses. The assessee sent a list describing the amounts as petrol expenses for the financial year 2014-15 and also furnished a list of vehicles. On verification of the vehicles, ld. Assessing Officer observed that the vehicles run by diesel but the assessee claimed the expenses for petrol. The assessee had also debited an amount of Rs.8,85,590/- as vehicles maintenance and Rs.15,12,953/- as ITA No. 751/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) M/s. Maa Travels 3 vehicles hire charges. The assessee hired the vehicles and paid the amount of hired vehicles but claimed vehicle maintenance charges and fuel charges. The assessee has not placed any evidence before the ld. Assessing Officer to prove that these expenses were incurred by the assessee. In view of the above, the entire expenses of Rs.27,21,353/- was disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. After considering the submissions made by the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer saying that the appellant failed to produce any evidence in support of its claim. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- (1) The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. (2) The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the impugned assessment order passed is barred by limitation in as much as the learned A.O. has not demonstrated that the assessment order had left his control before the limitation expired especially when the order has been served on the appellant on 30/01/2018 and thus, it cannot be said that the order of assessment was passed within time and is hence liable to be cancelled. (3) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the learned A.O. has traversed beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without obtaining previous approval from the PCIT and thus, the addition made in the impugned order beyond the scope of the limited ITA No. 751/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) M/s. Maa Travels 4 scrutiny proceedings are bad in law and liable to be deleted on this score. (4) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 27,21,353/- being the fuel expenses claimed by the appellant for running vehicles on the basis that the appellant has claimed petrol expenditure when it is running diesel vehicles without appreciating that the appellant has given details of the fuel expenditure incurred under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case. (5) Without prejudice, the disallowance made is excessive and liable to be reduced substantially. (6) For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs. 7. There is no representation from the assessee inspite of receipt of the notice. I have heard the ld. D.R. It was the submission of the ld. D.R. that the assessee claimed petrol expenditure but he has not given any proof to show that the assessee incurred the petrol expenditure. He further submitted that the assessee has submitted a list of vehicles, as identification, all the vehicles were run by diesel but he claimed the expenses for petrol, therefore, the claim of expenses for petrol was not accepted by the ld. Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. D.R. further submitted that before the Tribunal also, the assessee has not submitted any evidence to substantiate its expenditure. He, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). ITA No. 751/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) M/s. Maa Travels 5 8. I have perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee was hiring vehicles and paid hired charges for vehicles, but the assessee claimed vehicle maintenance charges. The vehicle maintenance charges and fuel expenses should be incurred by the vehicle owners. Apart from that, the assessee submitted a list describing the vehicles but all the vehicles are diesel-based vehicles but the assessee has claimed petrol expenditure. The assessee also has not given any break-up for monthly oil expenditure. The assessee has claimed vehicle hire charges at Rs.15,12,953/- and the assessee also claiming vehicle maintenance apart from the vehicle hire charges. For that also, the assessee has also not given any evidence to establish that the assessee himself incurred the maintenance expenditure for the hired vehicles. Therefore, in the absence of evidences, the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals) did not consider the submissions made by the assessee. Before me also, the assessee has not placed any evidence. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as well as ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/12/2024. Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 10th day of December, 2024 ITA No. 751/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) M/s. Maa Travels 6 Copies to :(1) M/s. Maa Travels, No. 399/A, 1st Stage, 3rd Phase, West of Chord Road, Manjunath Nagar, Bangalore-560010, Karnataka (2) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Ward-1(1), Kolkata (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S. "