2017 (6) TMI 400 - AT - Income Tax

Non-allowance of depreciation - Held that - Assessee made an application for admission of additional evidence, under which it has summarized the details of fixed assets purchased during the year and has submitted the invoices traced by the assessee in respect of part of the assets. In respect of assets under the head electric fittings , the assessee has not placed any invoices. In respect of lorry purchased, copy of agreement is filed and in respect of machinery purchased, the assessee has filed some of the invoices but complete details have not been filed. In respect of moulds purchased, the assessee has attached photocopies of all the invoices. The assessee points out that the said additional evidence may be admitted and the Assessing Officer may verify the same and allow depreciation as per law. We find merit in the plea of assessee. The assessee had purchased the fixed assets during the instant assessment year, against which it could not produce the bills before the CIT(A) since the same were not traceable. The additional evidence filed by the assessee in respect of various fixed assets is admitted. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the evidences available with the assessee and allow depreciation on such assets, for which the assessee has filed the copy of invoices. Addition made on account of hawala purchases - Held that - The assessee was asked to establish the delivery of goods and furnish the evidences in this regard in order to prove its case of purchases made. However, the assessee claimed that though the delivery of cement was made, but it had no evidence by way of lorry receipts or delivery challans. We restrict the addition in the hands of assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to apply GP rate of 10% on the goods purchased, over and above the GP rate declared by the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of depreciation.
2. Addition on account of inflated purchases.

Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Depreciation:
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer regarding the non-allowance of depreciation amounting to ?4,25,181. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision as the assessee failed to provide necessary details and bills for the purchase of assets. The CIT(A) rejected the claim of depreciation due to the unavailability of purchase bills and incomplete information regarding the mode of payment for the assets. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Assessing Officer was upheld.

2. Addition on Account of Inflated Purchases:
The second issue pertained to the addition of ?5,05,908 on account of alleged inflated purchases made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made the addition based on suspicions of purchases from hawala dealers. The CIT(A) upheld the addition as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the legitimacy of the purchases. The assessee claimed that despite making payments through banking channels, the lack of concrete evidence of delivery of goods led to the addition being upheld. The appeal against this addition was also dismissed by the CIT(A).

Judgment:
The ITAT Pune heard the appeal on both issues. Regarding the disallowance of depreciation, the assessee submitted additional evidence detailing fixed assets purchased during the year. The ITAT admitted the additional evidence and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the same and allow depreciation as per law. For the inflated purchases issue, the ITAT restricted the addition in the hands of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to apply a GP rate of 10% on the goods purchased. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the ITAT pronouncing the order on June 7, 2017.