Shakir Ahmad Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that expenditure related to the goods carriages taken on hire from the open market for carrying out the transportation activities is available to the assessee even if the receipts are subjected to taxation under provisions of section 44AE of the Income Tax Act.
Facts- After considering the submissions, CIT(A) sustained the additions in respect of disallowance of expenses on account of truck maintenance charges of Rs. 1,59,580/-, driver and conductors salary of Rs. 18,750/-, labour charges of Rs.30,650/-, truck hire charges of Rs.73,410/-, labour charges of Rs.2,41,570/- in respect of loading and unloading of goods. Aggrieved against the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Conclusion- However, in the present case, the assessee has taken certain goods carriages on hire which is not owned by the assessee and the assessee claimed certain expenses related to such carriages which is disallowed by the lower authorities. Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated this aspect. Therefore, the AO is directed to give deduction of expenditure which related to the goods carriages which were not owned by the assessee but taken on hire from the open market for carrying out the transportation activities.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008- 09 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Meerut dated 10.02.2015. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. “That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure on Truck maintenance for the period 1.5.2007 to 15.11.2007 being fully vouched and verifiable constituted admissible deduction. The disallowance of Rs. 159580/- made by Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) being illegal, erroneous and untenable on facts and in law deserves to be deleted.
2. That the salary paid to the Driver and Conductor for the period 1.11 2007 to 15.11.2007 constituted admissible deduction. There was no legal warrant to make any disallowance. The disallowance of Rs. 18750/- made by Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) being illegal, erroneous and untenable on facts and in law deserves to be deleted.
3. That the labour charges for the period 1.5.2007 to 15.11.2007 constituted admissible deduction. There was no legal warrant to make any disallowance. The impugned disallowance of Rs.30650/- made by Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) being illegal, erroneous and untenable on facts and in law deserves to be deleted.
4. That on facts and in the circumstances, there was no legal warrant to make any addition out of Truck Hire charges. The impugned addition of Rs 73,410/- made by Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT( Appeals) being illegal, erroneous and untenable on facts and in law deserves to be deleted.
5. That on facts and in the circumstances, there was no legal warrant to make any addition out of Labour charges. The impugned addition of Rs 241570/- made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) being illegal, erroneous and untenable on facts and in law, deserves to be deleted.
6. That on facts and in law interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234D and 244(A)(3)& 220(2) of I.T. Act was not leviable. Levy of interest under the said provisions deserves to be quashed and cancelled being void, without jurisdiction and untenable on facts and in law.
Ground Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5
3. This is second round of litigation. In earlier round, the matter travelled to the stage of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court vide order dated 29.10.2014 and restored the grounds of appeal to Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions, sustained the additions in respect of disallowance of expenses on account of truck maintenance charges of Rs. 1,59,580/-, driver and conductors salary of Rs. 18,750/-, labour charges of Rs.30,650/-, truck hire charges of Rs.73,410/-, labour charges of Rs.2,41,570/- in respect of loading and unloading of goods.
4. Aggrieved against the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri P. C. Yadav, reiterated the submissions as made vide synopsis dated 20.08.20 18. For the sake of clarity, the submissions of the assessee are reproduced as under:-
