TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 876
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim of "Carting Expenses". Both the sides have objected the part relief granted by the first appellate authority. The Assessing Officer has made the disallowance at the rate of 2.5%, however, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has restricted the same to 1% of the total expenses claimed under the said head. 3. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31/01/2006 were that the assessee is engaged in the business of transportation of chemical. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that for the purpose of transportation of liquid chemicals, the assessee deployed his own tankers as well as he has deployed the tankers belonging to sister-concerns of the same group. It has also bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has arrived at the conclusion that since in assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 relief was granted, therefore, following the same recourse he has directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance of 1% as against the disallowance of 2.5% made by the Assessing Officer. 3.4. On one hand, the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has vehemently argued that no addition should have been made in the absence of any objectionable evidence mentioned from the side of the Revenue. However, on the other hand, the Revenue Department has pleaded that the disallowance as made by the Assessing Officer at 2.5% deserves to be sustained. 3.5. Before us, Learned Autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn case dismissing the Revenue's appeal as per the following paragraph:- "The learned DR did not dispute the facts that the basis of making disallowance on account of alleged inflated carting expenses in the case of Shri Hasmukhbhai Mohanlal Shah (supra) is also the basis for making similar addition in the case of present assessee and thus the facts are very much similar to that in the case of Shri Hasmukhbhai. The learned DR also could not controvert the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) in the present case noted earlier. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and consistent with the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Hasmukhbhai Mohanlal Shah (supra), we dismiss the ground of the Revenue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stantiate the claim. It was also noticed that in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2000-01 on account of unverifiable shortage, a disallowance of Rs. 8,000/- was considered reasonable. Following that decision; for this year as well the Learned CIT(Appeals) has directed to restrict the disallowance at Rs. 8,000/-. 4. 3. As far as the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2000-01 was concerned, only the Revenue Department was before the Tribunal and vide ITA No.1919/Ahd/2004 for Assessment Year 2000-01 as per order dated 09/01/2008 it was dismissed in limine becuase the tax effect was less than the prescribed limit, meaning thereby; there was no discussion on merits. While mentioning the past history about the disallowance on account....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said sum in the Profit & Loss account. When this matter was reached before the first appellate authority, he has mentioned that the identical issue had come up in Assessment Year 2000-01, wherein it was decided against the assessee. He has also noted that the appellant had failed to substantiate that why a liability of a third party was claimed by the assessee. In the absence of explanation and following the past history, the said disallowance was confirmed. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee has not contested this claim seriously specially considering the past history of the case which he himself has relied upon, therefore, in the absence of any supporting evidence, we hereby affirm the findings of the authorities below and dismiss....