9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the lower authorities deleting the claim for depreciation on Flameless Furnace as the purchase and lease was as sham on the basis of a statement of the Director of the lessee u/s. 133 of the Act and ignoring the various documents like the triparte Agreement, lease Agreement, invoices of the supplier, delivery challan of the supplier, payment made from the Bank i.e. copies of the Bank statements?" 3. The Appellant is engaged in the business of financing and Leasing. In the subject Assessment Year, the Appellant-Assessee claimed depreciation on Flameless Furnace (Furnace) at 100% of its cost. The furnace was leased to one M/s. Omega Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chhenai (M/s. Omega). Duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o bring evidence on record to substantiate the transaction. This was due to the fact that the whereabouts of the lessee was not known due to lapse of time. Nevertheless, the Appellant-Assessee sought cross examination of the Director of M/s. Omega. However, the Assessing Officer on consideration of the evidence before him, including the statement of the Director of leasee, concluded against Appellant-Assessee and denied the claim for depreciation. 6. Being aggrieved, the Appellant-Assessee filed Appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in its order, recorded the fact that the various documents called for could not be furnished by the Appellant-Assessee. Further, it records the fact that the Appellant-Assessee was not able to explain even the where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retracted it before the Assessment Order was passed. Moreover, in the absence of the the Appellant-Assessee offering any explanation as to why the statement cannot be relied upon, no fault can be found on the reliance upon the statement of the Director of M/s. Omega. Further, so far as request for cross examination is concerned, we find that Appellant-Assessee, during the first round of proceedings before the Assessing Officer did not raise any such issue. At that point of time, the person who make the statement, could have been produced by the Assessing Officer. It was only in the second round of proceedings when the Appellant-Assessee was not able to contact the Director of M/s. Omega, that they came up with a request for his cross examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
