9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue account. However, our attention was not invited towards any material to substantiate such explanation. In our considered opinion, the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order on this issue is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO.We order accordingly and direct the AO to verify the view canvassed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) in arguing that this amount was, in fact, capitalized for the purposes of claiming depreciation. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Addition u/s 43B - Held that:- There is an absence of details in this regard to demonstrate as to whether or not the sum of ₹ 18,207/-, in fact, remained payable as work contract tax. Under such circumstances, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances, we set aside the impugned order on this score and send the matter back to the file of AO for elaborately discussing the nature of such expenditure and then deciding the issue afresh as per law, after entertaining objections from the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes - ITA No.3587/Del/2013, CO No.301/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 7-5-2015 - R. S. Syal, AM And A. T. Varkey, JM,JJ. For the Appellants : Shri K Sampath Shri Raja Kumar, Advs. For the Respondent : Ms Y. Kakkar, DR ORDER Per R S Syal,AM This appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee arise out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 14.3.2013 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The only grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penditure, the AO allowed depreciation on it amounting to ₹ 2,28,014/-. This resulted into an addition of ₹ 28,12,079/-. The ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition. 4. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is observed that though the assessee stated before the AO that the expenditure of ₹ 30.40 lac was of revenue nature, but it changed its stand before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that these machines were, in fact, capitalized by the assessee voluntarily and the observations of the AO in this regard were wrong. It is evident that there is an apparent contradiction between the stand taken by the assessee before the AO on one hand and the ld. CIT(A) on the other. The ld. AR veh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition for the said sum. It was argued before the ld. CIT(A) that the tax auditor inadvertently qualified the audit report by mentioning that the said sum was contract tax disallowable u/s 43B of the Act. The ld. AR contended that there is no amount of tax payable by the assessee. We find that there is an absence of details in this regard to demonstrate as to whether or not the sum of ₹ 18,207/-, in fact, remained payable as work contract tax. Under such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of AO for vetting the assessee s contention in this regard. If it is found on such examination that work contract tax to that tune, in fact, remained unpaid before the filing of return of income, then, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that no disallowance can be made even by treating such expenditure as not having been incurred for the business purpose. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in several cases including Dy. CIT vs. Haryana Oxygen Ltd. (2001) 76 ITD 32 (Del). In view of the above decisions, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the disallowance to this extent. This ground is allowed. 8. The last ground is against the confirmation of disallowance on account of repairs and maintenance expenses of ₹ 1,78,578/- by treating it as capital expenditure. The facts apropos this ground are that the assessee purchased Printed frosted films amounting to ₹ 1,98,419/- and treated it as revenue expenditure. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
