9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 and 2007-08 besides depreciation was allowed and the assessments were framed u/s 143(3). The impugned assets became part of the block of assets and any question in subsequent year about the ownership is meaning less, therefore, we are unable to sustain the finding of the assessing officer that assets were not owned by the assessee. The subsequent upgradation of the software and machinery etc. though may be with the sub distributor the fact remains that the assessee's assets were also used. The impugned assets were used for the purpose of the assessee's business, therefore, depreciation is to be allowed. Also find force in the argument of ld. Counsel for the assessee that assuming worst against the assessee the assets being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the machinery was provided to sub-distributor at that site for use by the customers. 3. The assessee's appeal to the CIT (Appeals) was allowed, who took note, inter alia, of two facts i.e. for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08, depreciation had been allowed in scrutiny assessment and that for AY 2009-10, in the reply to queries under Section 133(6), one of the assessee's sub-distributors had confirmed that the machinery on the site was provided. The revenue's appeal was rejected by the ITAT. The impugned order holds as follows: 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record, Following facts clearly emerge: a. The assets qua which the depreciation is claimed were not purchased during this year, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck of assets kept in readiness for use of the business, the depreciation is to be allowed. In view of above we find no merit in revenue's appeals. 4. This Court has considered the submissions. It is a matter of record that for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08, the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) after due enquiries were conducted by the AO. There is nothing on the record to suggest that those were either erroneous or based on premises which did not disclose relevant details. The revenue's attempt in reopening the assessment of 2009-10, by relying upon statement of one of the sub-distributors also failed because the said concern, M/s Best Company, in fact confirmed the assessee's contention. Given the factual nature o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
