9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 3,53,281/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of depreciation of new fixed assets. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A)ignored the fact that the assessee did not file any evidence in support of the additions made to fixed assets during the year. 0.4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,30,998/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of administrative and manufacturing expenses. 4.1 The Ld CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee did not file any evidence in support of the expenses incurred and did not produce books of accounts during the assessment proceedings. 05. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of amount surrendered during the survey operation under section 133A. 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee did not substantiate its claim of having included the surrendered amount in the return income. 06. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, or amend any grounds of the appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 3. Apropos de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee; iv) Details of the advances alongwith the addresses of the customer; v) Statements of account of the fixed assets in which additions took place during the year under consideration alongwith the supporting copies of invoices in respect of the new assets acquired during the year; and vi) The details under various heads of expenditure by way of a comparative chart of Manufacturing, Administrative & other expenses for Assessment Year 2006-07 and earlier Assessment Year 2005-06. 9. The records reveals that the Ld CIT(A) forwarded the aforesaid documents to the Assessing Officer and after receiving the remand report from the Assessing Officer and after taking into consideration the rejoinder filed by the assessee the ld CIT(A) passed the impugned order by which he partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order of the ld CIT(A), the revenue is before us. 10. The ld DR relied on the Assessing Officer's order and the ld AR relied on the order of the ld CIT(A). 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records. 12. From a perusal of the impugned order we note that the unexplained credits of Rs. 1,00,12,658/- consists of the following: (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence. Therefore we find there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld CIT(A) to delete the addition of Rs. 1,00,12,658/-. 16. As a result ground No. 2 and 2.1 of the revenue fails and is therefore dismissed. 17. Apropos deletion of addition of Rs. 3,53,281/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of depreciation of new fixed assets. 18. The ld DR pointed out that the assessee did not file any evidence in support of the addition made to fixed assets during the relevant Assessment Year and therefore the Assessing Officer rightly completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and disallowed the depreciation on new fixed assets. On the other hand, according to the ld AR, Assessing Officer failed to consider the fact that new fixed assets were owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of business and thus the assessee was entitled to depreciation for the new fixed assets. According to the ld AR, since the particulars for claiming depreciation, were already available on the record of the Assessing Officer, it was wrong to disallow the depreciation on the new fixed asset. The ld AR also pointed out that the assessee brought the copies of the invoices in respect of the new assets ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accounts of the assessee and has not brought any new fact or evidence to prove that the administrative expenses of Rs. 96,29,207/- and manufacturing expenses of Rs. 96,80,782/- were not incurred for the purposes of business. 23. We would like to reiterate that it is a well settled principle of law that, when a Judicial or Quasi-judicial Authority are deciding a question of fact, that has to be decided on the basis of materials and evidences to support the same and not on the basis of surmises and conjectures as laid down in a catena of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and that suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of proof. Here we find there was no material or evidence before the AO, to support the impugned disallowance at an ad-hoc rate of 10% of the total expense. 24. Ld CIT(A) has pointed out that the disallowance of the said ad-hoc disallowance, smacks of arbitrariness and is devoid of any logic. Therefore, in the said circumstances we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld CIT(A) and the appeal of the revenue fails on this ground also. 25. Apropos deletion of the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of amount surren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
