9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ete - The matter was restored for fresh adjudication. - I.T.A. No. 273/Coch/2013 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2013 - Shri N. R. S. Ganesan, JM And B. R. Baskaran, AM,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri C. B. M. Warrier, CA For the Respondent : Smt. Latha V. Kumar, Jr. DR and Shri M. Anil Kumar, CIT(DR) ORDER Per B. R. Baskaran, Accountant Member: The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 28-02-2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Kozhikode and it relates to the assessment year 2005- 06. 2. The following additions made by the Assessing officer, having been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 1. Difference in account of Kohinoor Crane services : Rs. 25,15,865 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hire charges, paid at JUSL site, Bellary, which were forwarded to the Assessing officer for verification. During the remand proceedings, enquiries were made by the Assessing officer with JUSL and they have also confirmed that no such machinery was brought to their site during the relevant period. 7. The next ground of appeal is against the disallowance of Rs. 1,15,250/- being the excess claim of depreciation on Plate Blending Machine purchased form M/s. Raj Exports. The Assessing officer called for the full details of transactions with the assessee during the year from M/s. Raj Exports and found that total transaction was for Rs. 2,30,600/- and closing balance was shown as NIL. Verification of the invoice copy filed by the assessee revea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome returned. Thus, the AO has made the above said three additions on the reasoning that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the claim. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the additions, since no fresh material was placed before him. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. The main contention urged by ld A.R before us is that the assessee has made majority of payments towards the above said expenses/purchase of machinery by way of cheques and the tax authorities have taken adverse decision without examining the identity of the payees of those cheques. With regard to the payments made to M/s Envee Feberect, it was contended by Ld A.R that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
