9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows that the claims in question have been accepted without any enquiry thereon. We agree with the observation of the Pr.Commissioner that depreciation allowance under s.32 on the invoices for purchase of the vehicle on the last day calls for minimum satisfaction that the assess were put to use on that day itself. The completion of formalities at a subsequent date gives rise to reasonable and plausible inference in support of the opinion of Pr.CIT which is required to be rebutted by the assessee. Similarly, the insurance claim for the whole year has been claimed even if it is presumed for a moment that the vehicles insured wherein put to use on the last day. Clearly, a presumption would arise that expenses though paid were not incurr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased two Taurus Trucks vide Invoice dated 31/03/2011 i.e. on the last day of financial year. The Pr.CIT alleged that the claim of the assessee for depreciation of ₹ 2,78,570/- was allowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) without even making preliminary enquiry as to how the said trucks were put to use on the last day of the Financial Year and how the trucks were eligible for depreciation under s.32 of the Act for the year under consideration. The Pr.CIT also found that the assessee s claim for expenditure towards insurance charges of ₹ 3,82,147/- so also allowed by the AO without verifying the fact as to whether the claim was made included insurance charges of these new trucks. It was also found that the trucks could not have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It was thus contended that jurisdiction under s.263 of the Act has been wrongfully assumed by the Pr.CIT. On merits, as regards allowance of depreciation of ₹ 2,78,570/- on two Taurus trucks as per invoice at last day of the FY (31/03/2011), it was contended that the trucks were put to use for the purpose of business on the same day pending completion of RTO formalities. It was contended that non-registration of RTO would not lead to inference that assets were not put to use for the purpose of business. As regard insurance claim of ₹ 3,82,147/-, it was contended that the insurance expenses were incurred for the purpose of business in the FY 2010-11 and has been debited to accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iation on capital expenditure wrongly allowed without any enquiry and without examining the issues involved in perspective. It was also alleged that the reply of the assessee is not supported by the corroborative evidences. On objective considerations of the entirety of circumstances, we find that no material has been brought to our notice by the assessee which goes to prove that the AO had examined the issues raised by the Pr.CIT and allowed these claims after proper factual appreciation thereof. We observe that the assessee could not bring anything on record to prove that an enquiry on the issue was conducted by the AO while completing the impugned assessment. It follows that the claims in question have been accepted without any enquiry t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
