Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 808 - ITAT DELHIExpenses on account of repair and maintenance - Held that:- Genuineness of expenses has not been doubted because the Assessing Officer has allowed depreciation after capitalizing these expenses. He produced copy of ledger account of repairs and maintenance (building) from which it is evident that the payments were made for purchase of cement, tiles etc.. The Assessing Officer concluded that the expenses were in capital filed primarily because in the fixed assets schedule the value of building was shown at ₹ 2,46,672/-. No justification in the reasoning of Assessing Officer confirmed by ld. CIT(A) because value of building as per books primarily represented written down value of building. The assessee had explained that the building was more 10-15 years old. The assessee had incurred these expenses throughout the year and since the building was old, therefore, it required regular repairs. Under these circumstances,the expenses incurred by assessee were only for the purposes of repair and maintenance of building and, therefore, allowable as revenue expenditure. In the result, this ground is allowed. Expenses on account of vehicle running and maintenance - Held that:- In the present set of facts, the Assessing Officer primarily doubted that the payment was made in one go but was split over different dates because payment had been made against two bills of M/s Harsh Auto Care of ₹ 83,519/- plus ₹ 87,835/-. The credibility of assessee’s regular books of account could be rejected only by bring on record a concrete evidence from M/s Harsh Auto Care by Assessing Officer. It is true that the onus lies on assessee to substantiate its claim but at the same time if assessee has discharged its primary onus then it is for the Assessing Officer to bring evidence on record to contradict the assessee’s claim. It is well settled law that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot replace the evidence. Therefore, do not find any reason for rejecting the assessee’s claim of payment being made for less than ₹ 20,000/- over the period as per ledger account. In the result, this ground is also allowed.
|