9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the factory of the supplier to the factory of the assessee where the machinery was installed. The ITAT has given an additional ground to set aside the order, namely, that Mr. Viren Ahuja was not even produced for cross-examination. As the actual statement of Mr. Viren Ahuja has not been produced on record & as it appears from the orders of the authorities below that Mr. Viren Ahuja had not disputed the supply of the machinery to the assessee. In fact he had stated that the machinery supplied to the assessee was not manufactured by the supplier itself and the benefit under section 80-IA was wrongly claimed by the said supplier and it is only on that account that the supplier had approached the Settlement Commission. Therefore, merely th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Thereafter, the re-assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 31st March, 2004 deleting the depreciation allowed on the aforesaid machinery. The Assessing Officer while taking the aforesaid course of action based its decision on the statement of Mr. Viren Ahuja of the supplier, who had allegedly stated that the machinery was not supplied by the supplier to the assessee. The Assessing Officer had also taken note of the fact that the supplier had itself approached the Settlement Commission and there also it had accepted non-supply of the machinery. 2. The assessee preferred appeal there against before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber, 2004, the CIT(A) called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer under section 250(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer submitted his report dated 24th March, 2006. As per this report, the factory premises of the assessee at Shahjahanpur were inspected by the Inspector, who personally visited there and found that the machinery was in fact installed. This was stated in the following manner:- "In your first query you have asked to verify that whether valves and other machinery match the description given by the assessee. To check this issue photograph provided by the assessee were matched with actual plant site on test check basis. And plants as well as valves were found to be physically present on plant site which shows that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact recorded by CIT(A) that machinery was in fact purchased by the assessee and it was not a case of bogus purchase. 5. It is clear from the aforesaid that the matter is in the realm of facts only as to whether it was a case of bogus purchase shown by the assessee or the assessee had in fact purchased the machinery on which it had claimed depreciation. It is clear from the above that the CIT(A) as well as ITAT have arrived at a finding of fact, that too, on the basis of remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer himself that machinery was in fact purchased by the assessee. 6. Detailed discussion in this order also confirmed transportation of the machinery from the factory of the supplier to the factory of the assessee where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
