9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 651 - AT - Income TaxExcess claim of depreciation on boilers - CIT(A) allowed the claim - whether the assessee has installed energy saving device being a specialized boiler and furnace on which it can claim depreciation at the rate of 80%? - HELD THAT - A perusal of the certificate would indicate that it is dated 24.1.2017 issued after the assessment order. This chartered engineer has no where specified that such BFBC boiler was installed under his supervision or he has inspected the boiler. He simply stated that this concern has installed a boiler but no mention on what basis he observed so; had he ever visited the premises of the assessee ? Therefore, it was necessary for the AO to examine such type of person, but he was not produced before the AO even in the remand proceedings. Other evidences submitted by the assessee are copies of invoices vide which parts of the boilers have been purchased. AO has issued notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act and directed this person to furnish information, but these were not responded. Similarly in other bills, there are supplies of parts viz. air ducting, supporting structure, bed coil etc. All these items have been purchased on different dates, namely, first invoice on page no.41 is dated 17.8.2004, but another invoice on page no.47 is dated 23.2.2005. It is not discernible actually how these components have been used, and when they were installed. These are details, which have been furnished in a very casual manner, and have been accepted by the ld.CIT(A) without any proper verification. Therefore, we are of the view that in spite of second round of litigation, the assessee could not produce complete details in support of its claim. The finding of the ld.CIT(A) is not based on correct appreciation of the material facts, rather the ld.CIT(A) has misconstrued partial and incomplete documents available on the record. We do not have any hesitation in setting aside this finding. On analysis of the record, we are of the firm view that assessee failed to prove the installation of high efficiency boiler on which depreciation at the rate of 80% could be claimed. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of ?4,54,45,709/- claimed as depreciation on boilers by the assessee. 2. Admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Issue 1: Disallowance of ?4,54,45,709/- Claimed as Depreciation on Boilers by the Assessee The Revenue's primary grievance was the deletion of a disallowance amounting to ?4,54,45,709/-, which was initially disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to an excess claim of depreciation on boilers. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading of yarn, fabrics, and garments, had filed a revised return claiming 80% depreciation on plant and machinery, specifically on boilers, instead of the originally claimed 15%. The AO did not take cognizance of this revised return and determined the taxable income without considering the higher depreciation claim. Upon appeal, the first appellate authority (CIT(A)) took cognizance of the revised return and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the issue. The AO, upon re-adjudication, maintained the disallowance, stating that the assessee failed to furnish evidence proving that the boilers qualified as high-efficiency boilers eligible for 80% depreciation as per the Income Tax Rules. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim, noting that the boilers in question were BFBC (bubbling fluidized bed combustion) boilers, which are eligible for 80% depreciation under the category of "specialized boilers and furnaces" in the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) also observed that the AO had allowed depreciation at 80% in subsequent years and had not disputed the genuineness of the transactions. Issue 2: Admissibility of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 The Revenue argued that the assessee did not produce sufficient evidence during the assessment proceedings to justify the higher depreciation claim. The AO had requested evidence multiple times, but the assessee failed to provide adequate proof. The CIT(A) considered additional evidence, including a certificate from a chartered engineer, which was not produced before the AO during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, outlines specific conditions under which additional evidence can be admitted by the appellate authority. The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence without following the prescribed procedure, which includes giving the AO an opportunity to examine the evidence and record reasons for its admission. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adhere to these procedural requirements and accepted the additional evidence without proper verification. The Tribunal also observed that the chartered engineer's certificate, dated after the assessment order, did not specify whether the engineer had inspected the boiler or on what basis the certificate was issued. Additionally, the invoices provided by the assessee were found to be inconsistent and did not clearly demonstrate the installation of the high-efficiency boiler. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of installing a high-efficiency boiler eligible for 80% depreciation. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow the higher depreciation was based on incomplete and improperly verified documents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings, restored the AO's order, and confirmed the disallowance of ?4,54,45,709/-. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed, and the order was pronounced on 28th January 2021 at Ahmedabad.
|
