2020 (1) TMI 17 - AT - Income Tax

Claim of depreciation - Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the purchase value by 50% and allowed depreciation thereon - non genuine purchases merely relying upon the information received from the Sales Tax Department - HELD THAT - Facts on record do establish that the assessee had purchased the machinery and it was installed in its factory. When such evidences were filed before the Assessing Officer, the minimum which is expected from him was to verify the authenticity of these documents before treating the purchases as non genuine. However, as it appears from record, the Assessing Officer has not conducted any effective enquiry qua the documentary evidences filed by the assessee. It is further evident, merely relying upon the information received from the Sales Tax Department and the fact that the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act returned back un served, the Assessing Officer has disallowed assessee s claim of depreciation. Whereas, learned Commissioner (Appeals) without any justifiable reason has reduced the purchase value by 50% and allowed depreciation thereon. It is not forthcoming from the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on what basis he has reduced 50% of the purchase value. In our opinion, when the assessee has furnished certain documentary evidences demonstrating purchase of goods from the declared source and delivery of such goods at its premises, without bringing any contrary material to falsify such evidences, assessee s claim cannot be rejected on presumption and surmises. When learned Commissioner (Appeals) has factually found that the machinery was received by the assessee and was installed in its factory. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the entire purchase value of ₹ 10,23,750, as permissible in law. Accordingly, the AO is directed to allow assessee s claim of depreciation on the amount of ₹ 10,23,750, keeping in view the period for which the asset was put to use. essing Officer is directed to allow assessee s claim of depreciation on the amount of ₹ 10,23,750, keeping in view the period for which the asset was put to use.

Summary

Issues involved: Assessment of depreciation claim for a manufacturing company; Disallowance of depreciation by Assessing Officer; Appeal before the first appellate authority; Reduction of purchase value by 50% by the first appellate authority; Appeal before the Tribunal by both the Revenue and the assessee; Verification of documentary evidences to prove genuineness of purchases; Treatment of purchases as non-genuine based on information from Sales Tax Department; Disallowance of depreciation by Assessing Officer without effective enquiry; Tribunal's decision on allowing depreciation claim in full.

Analysis:

1. Assessment of depreciation claim: The case involved the assessment of a manufacturing company's claim for depreciation for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee filed its return of income, which was later revised. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on information received regarding alleged non-genuine purchases.

2. Dispute over depreciation claim: The main issue in the appeals before the Tribunal was the part allowance of the assessee's claim for depreciation. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claim as the purchases were deemed non-genuine. The first appellate authority reduced the purchase value by 50% and allowed depreciation on the balance amount. Both the Revenue and the assessee appealed this decision before the Tribunal.

3. Verification of documentary evidences: The Tribunal considered the submissions and perused the documentary evidences provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases. The Assessing Officer had relied on information from the Sales Tax Department and the failure of notices issued under section 133(6) to the selling dealer. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished various documents, including purchase invoices and delivery notes, demonstrating the purchase and delivery of goods.

4. Tribunal's decision: The Tribunal found that the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee established the genuineness of the purchases. It criticized the Assessing Officer for not conducting a thorough enquiry into the documents before disallowing the depreciation claim. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on the entire purchase value, overturning the first appellate authority's decision to reduce the purchase value by 50%.

5. Final ruling: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's claim for depreciation on the full amount of the purchases, emphasizing the importance of verifying documentary evidences before making decisions based on presumptions and surmises.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the depreciation claim in the case.