Case Law Details
Mohammad Bhai Esufali & Sons Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
The only dispute is about wastage/evaporation claimed by the assessee at 1.23%/0.89%. These figures have emerged from the tabulation made in the impugned order on page 4, where the assessee gave a comparative analysis showing that the wastage/shortage in the immediately preceding year was higher at 1.25%/1.12%, which got accepted by the Revenue. The assessee also gave separate reasons for the excess wastage, being, breakage of diesel and petrol tank. In my considered opinion, though the general standards of evaporation/breakage given by the oil companies apply as a rule but they are not without exception. Where the assessee demonstrates specific reasons for excess wastage/evaporation, such reasons cannot be thrown to the dustbin. They need to be examined on case to case basis. Simply because the wastage/evaporation turned out to be a little higher in comparison with the standards, the authorities cannot make addition de hors examination of the assesse’s explicit explanation. Considering the fact that the assessee gave specific reasons in this case for higher wastage vis-à-vis the standards set by the oil companies, which was also lower than that of the immediately preceding year, I am satisfied that there is no reason to sustain such disallowance. The addition of Rs.5,69,927/- is, ergo, directed to be deleted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21-11-2019 passed by the CIT(A)-1, Nashik in relation to the assessment year 2014-15.
2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.5,69,927/- towards wastage or shortage on evaporation.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a dealer in Petrol and Diesel, running a Petrol pump. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the wastage/evaporation claimed by the assessee was on higher side vis-à-vis the limits prescribed by the oil companies. On being called upon to explain the reasons, the assessee submitted that more evaporation/wastage occurred because of Diesel and Petrol tank breakage. Not satisfied, the AO applied the standards fixed by the oil companies for wastage/ evaporation and computed the excess wastage, which translated into an addition of Rs.5,69,927/-. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the assessment order. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has approached the Tribunal.
4. I have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of assessee despite notice. I am, therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee on merits.
5. The only dispute is about wastage/evaporation claimed by the assessee at 1.23%/0.89%. These figures have emerged from the tabulation made in the impugned order on page 4, where the assessee gave a comparative analysis showing that the wastage/shortage in the immediately preceding year was higher at 1.25%/1.12%, which got accepted by the Revenue. The assessee also gave separate reasons for the excess wastage, being, breakage of diesel and petrol tank. In my considered opinion, though the general standards of evaporation/breakage given by the oil companies apply as a rule but they are not without exception. Where the assessee demonstrates specific reasons for excess wastage/evaporation, such reasons cannot be thrown to the dustbin. They need to be examined on case to case basis. Simply because the wastage/evaporation turned out to be a little higher in comparison with the standards, the authorities cannot make addition de hors examination of the assesse’s explicit explanation. Considering the fact that the assessee gave specific reasons in this case for higher wastage vis-à-vis the standards set by the oil companies, which was also lower than that of the immediately preceding year, I am satisfied that there is no reason to sustain such disallowance. The addition of Rs.5,69,927/- is, ergo, directed to be deleted.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01st July, 2022.
