2016 (1) TMI 535 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on machinery purchased from group of companies - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that - Parties from whom machines have been purchased are registered under VAT, purchase bills have been issued, entry is available in Gate Pass Register. The reason for absence of lorry number was that the machine(s) purchased from Prakash Finstock Pvt. Ltd. was at Ex- Mill delivery and, therefore, the transportation charges were not required to be paid by the assessee and in the case of Ashutosh Fibre Pvt. Ltd., this supplier being local party, hand cart was used for bringing the separate parts of the machine to the destination which were later on assembled at the assessee s premises. Due to this reason there was no transport receipt for machine purchased from Ashutosh Fibre Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the assessee was having sufficient reason for not having lorry receipt for the machines purchased from Prakash Finstock Pvt. Ltd. and Ashutosh Fibre Pvt. Ltd. Apart from this, nothing contrary has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to controvert the submissions of the ld. AR in regard to the details submitted in the form of bills, Gate Pass entry, inward entry of machinery, copy of bills of machinery of original purchaser etc. In these circumstances and on the basis of our observations above, we are of the opinion that as the assessee has furnished sufficient documents and evidences to prove the genuineness of purchase of machineries from group companies and therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of ld. CIT(A) - Decided in favour of assessee Addition under section 41(1) on account of cessation of liability - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The liability of sundry creditors has not ceased to exist rather there were regular transactions with these parties in the latter years as well. Not a single instance has been brought to prove that sundry creditors have denied their claims nor the assessee has written off the liability in its books of account in the year under plea, and therefore, respectfully following the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. (1999 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court) and CIT vs. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara (2014 (2) TMI 794 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) and in light of our discussions made above, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Depreciation on machinery purchased from group companies.
2. Addition under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of cessation of liability.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Depreciation on Machinery Purchased from Group Companies:

The Revenue appealed against the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowing depreciation of Rs. 7,25,013 on machinery purchased from group companies. The disallowance comprised two parts:
- Disallowance of Rs. 6,96,450: This was due to the purchase of machinery worth Rs. 46,43,000 from group companies. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the depreciation citing non-availability of transportation and installation receipts.
- Disallowance of Rs. 28,563: This was due to the AO allowing depreciation for only six months instead of the whole year, as the machinery was put to use after 30th September 2009.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 28,563 due to the lack of response from the assessee. However, it reversed the disallowance of Rs. 6,96,450, noting that the assessee provided sufficient evidence, including purchase bills, gate pass entries, and delivery receipts. The Tribunal found the reasons for the absence of lorry receipts valid, as one purchase was made via ex-mill delivery and the other via hand cart due to local delivery. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on the machinery purchased from group companies.

2. Addition under Section 41(1) on Account of Cessation of Liability:

The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 59,24,478 under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which the AO had added as cessation of liability for unpaid sundry creditors. The AO had observed that certain creditors had unchanged balances over the years, implying cessation of liability.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a sick industrial company under BIFR, had ongoing transactions with most creditors, and payments were made in subsequent years. The Tribunal emphasized that for section 41(1) to apply, there must be a remission or cessation of liability during the relevant assessment year, which was not the case here. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd., which held that unilateral entries by the debtor do not constitute cessation of liability, and the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara, which reiterated that cessation must occur within the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the creditors had relinquished their claims or that the liabilities had ceased. Therefore, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition under section 41(1), dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the disallowance of Rs. 28,563 for depreciation but dismissing the appeal regarding the cessation of liability under section 41(1). The remaining grounds were of a general nature and did not require adjudication. The order was pronounced in the open court on 23/10/2015.