9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me in the present year or not - order of ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable – in favour of revenue. Deleting the addition by CIT(A) on account of treatment of stamp duty expenses as capital expenses – Held that:- Merely making contention that stamp duty expenses were incurred for obtaining loan cannot be accepted unless the same is supported by some evidence - since there is no mention in the order of ld. CIT(A) or in the submission made about evidence and no reply or evidence was produced before the AO, the disallowance made by the AO is justified and the order of ld. CIT(A) for deleting the addition is not sustainable – in favour of revenue. Deleting the addition by CIT (A) on account of disallowance of depreciation – Held that:- Simply because the payment is made by cheque and some entries are made in the inward register, it cannot be accepted that the assets were procured and were put to use and hence depreciation is allowable - No such bill has been produced by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) regarding the purchase of assets or evidence in respect of putting into use of the assets- in favour of revenue. - ITA No. 3076/Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2011 - T.K. Sharma, A.K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asked as to why the land and restoration expenses should not be treated as capital expenditure. For this also, no explanation whatsoever was furnished by the assessee inspite of opportunity given. Hence, these expenses were also disallowed by the AO by treating it as capital expenditure. 6. The third issue relates to deletion of addition of Rs.9,02,150/-. The AO in para 5 at page 9 of the assessment order noted that the assessee has debited many expenses in the ledger of stamps duty expenses out of which an amount of Rs.3,01,250/- is shown as ICICI bank and Rs.6,00,900/- is shown as cash. The AO further noted that since nature of these expenses are not explained in the account, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why this stamp duty expenses of Rs.3,01,250/- and Rs.6,00,000/- should not be treated as capital expenditure. In reply it was submitted by the assessee that these expenses are related to loans sanctioned by the bank, but he could not furnish evidence in this regard. The AO held that in absence of any evidence, the explanation of the assessee cannot be accepted. He held that even if stamp duty is related to sanction of loan, it cannot be treated as revenue expend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts of land restoration expenses is available at pages 161 to 167 of the Paper Book. Regarding ledger account of Stamp Duty expenses, it was submitted that it is available on pages 168 to 171 of the Paper Book. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record and gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that the disallowance made by the AO on account of dead stock had been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) observing that the expenses pertain to spares consumed such as chairs, tables, utensils, temporary structures etc. used on various sites of the assessee company. When we examine the details of dead stock expenses which are available on pages 142 to 160 of the Paper Book, we find that it includes even expenses of Rs.19,700/- incurred by the assessee against bill for one Sony Colour TV and one Kelvinator Refrigerator on 17.10.2006. We also find that payment of Rs.10,744/- has been made for purchase of office table on 16/12/2006, an amount of Rs.12,300/- has been paid on 22/12/2006 for purchase of battery 150 Amp for office, an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been paid for purchase of one television (CTV 21") from Katara Enterprises on 22/12/2006, and an amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich it is claimed that the land leveling expenses were incurred have been shown as income in the present year or not has not come out from the record. This is very important aspect because if the receipts on this account are not declared as income in the present year then even if it is accepted that these expenses are in connection with laying of pipe lines, the same has to be added to the value of closing stock and it will not be allowable as expenditure in the present year. There is no finding of ld. CIT(A) in his order on this aspect. Hence, we find that the order of ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. Considering the facts of the present case, we feel that in the interest of justice, this matter should go back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We order accordingly. Ground No.2 is allowed for statistical purposes. Ld. CIT(A) should decide this issue afresh in the light of above discussion after providing adequate opportunity to both sides. 13. The third issue as per ground no.3 of appeal is regarding treatment of stamp duty expenses incurred by the assessee of Rs.9,02,150/-. The stamp duty expenses were treated as capital expenditure by the AO because no explanat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat due to shifting between Delhi and Ahmedabad, certain bills could not be traced at the time of assessment proceedings and hence could not be submitted. He further observed that payment was made by cheque and they were duly supported by gate inward entry. But there is no mention in his order of details of those bills which could not be produced before the AO in the course of assessment proceedings because of shifting of office from Delhi to Ahmedabad and there is no finding that those bills were produced before him. We fail to understand that even if some bills are misplaced, the same can be furnished by obtaining duplicate copies of bills from the concerned suppliers. No such bill has been produced by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) or even before us. Considering the facts of the present case, we feel that the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue is also not sustainable because the same is without any basis. Simply because the payment is made by cheque and some entries are made in the inward register, it cannot be accepted that the assets were procured and were put to use and hence depreciation is allowable. The assessee had to establish two things i.e. acquisition of assets and its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
