9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 750 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of depreciation and additional depreciation on rough forged rolls - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that - We reiterate that the Assessing Officer had invoked the impugned disallowance for the reason that the assessee had not be able to prove the necessary details of rolls in question being purchase followed by their installation in put to use condition before 31.03.2007. This resulted in disallowance of depreciation and additional depreciation in question. The CIT(A) discusses that relevant document of transportation, delivery and put to use condition before 31.03.2007 are already on record. The assessee has also filed a compilation of all these documents before us. The Revenue fails to controvert the same by taking us to any of the relevant material. We uphold the CIT(A) s finding under challenge accordingly. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation and additional depreciation on fixed assets. 2. Disallowance of depreciation on rough forged rolls. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Depreciation and Additional Depreciation on Fixed Assets: The Revenue's first substantive ground challenges the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance of Rs. 75,89,298/- of depreciation and additional depreciation made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee company, engaged in trading engineering spheres and tools, had shown purchases of fixed assets from M/s. Collective Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. D & H Enterprise. The Assessing Officer found these purchases to be potentially bogus due to discrepancies such as the same authorized signatory for both entities and suspicious bank transactions. Consequently, the depreciation and additional depreciation claimed were disallowed. The assessee appealed, providing additional evidence including sales bills, bank statements, loan sanctioning letters, and a valuation report certifying the existence of the machineries. The CIT(A) obtained a remand report and allowed this additional evidence, deleting the disallowance. The CIT(A) noted that the purchases were verified through various documents and the existence of the assets was confirmed by an independent valuer and bank verification. The CIT(A) concluded that the purchases were genuine and the disallowance of depreciation was unjustified. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Revenue failed to rebut the detailed evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal affirmed that the CIT(A) had followed the principles of natural justice and the additional evidence substantiated the genuineness of the purchases. Therefore, the Revenue's first substantive ground was rejected. 2. Disallowance of Depreciation on Rough Forged Rolls: The Revenue's second substantive ground challenges the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 63,32,976/- being depreciation on rough forged rolls. The assessee had claimed depreciation on rough forged blanks for rolls purchased from M/s. Tirupati Industries, but the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim due to the assessee's failure to provide necessary details of transportation, delivery, and "put to use" status. The assessee provided additional evidence, including purchase bills, a certificate from an engineer confirming the rolls were put to use, and transport receipts. The CIT(A) accepted this additional evidence after obtaining a remand report, noting that the documents substantiated the receipt and installation of the rolls before the end of the financial year. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee was entitled to the claimed depreciation as the rolls were put to use within the relevant period. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, reiterating that the necessary documents were on record and the Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence. The Tribunal affirmed that the assessee had sufficiently proven the genuineness of the purchases and the installation of the rolls, thereby justifying the claim for depreciation. Consequently, the Revenue's second substantive ground was also rejected. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for both depreciation on fixed assets and rough forged rolls. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with detailed evidence and following principles of natural justice in tax proceedings.
|
