9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er places and got them assembled into ‘broadcasting and monitoring system’. At least assessee could have furnished the copy of the returns filed before the AO of erstwhile company in due time, as the assets were not acquired by Laser Dot Ltd., but seems to be part of merged company, Esha News Monitoring Services Private Limited. Since nothing was placed on record to substantiate the claim, we are unable to appreciate assessee’s contention that the machinery should have been inspected by the AO and depreciation allowed. It is for assessee to substantiate the acquisition of assets, atleast prima-facie, by furnishing necessary vouchers, invoices, values and make etc., so that there is some basis for verification. In the absence of the same, the burden cannot be shifted. In view of that, we uphold the order of the AO/ CIT(A) - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1301/HYD/2015 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2017 - SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For Assessee : Shri S. Rama Rao, AR For Revenue : Smt Amisha S. Gupt, DR ORDER Per B. Ramakotaiah, A. M. This is an appeal by assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material in the second hand market and from other places and assembled the same into a broadcasting and monitoring system. In fact CINEOM Broadcast India Pvt. Ltd Mumbai vide letter dated 20.06.2013 offered to assemble the required set At a cost of ₹ 1,72,28,000. This material was placed before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, without examining the material available on record: without inspecting the premises and without considering the fact that the business activity of the appellant could not have been run without the said machinery disallowed depreciation, on a cost price of ₹ 2,59,43,948/-. The appellant submits that- It is in the business of media monitoring, research and analysis; a. It carried on the business activity and derived receipt of ₹ 8,90,83,747 ; b. It operated machinery in the process of its business activity and was able to carry on the business; c. The machinery required was available at its premises and the said machinery was used and income derived. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer is not justified in holding that the depreciation on such machinery is not allowable as a deduction; part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the head computers amounting to ₹ 2,59,43,948/- nether during the assessment nor in appellate proceedings. During the appellate proceedings, instead of any details or evidences the appellant submitted only a written explanation. Some bizarre arguments were placed by the appellant. On the one hand it was claimed that the materials and spares etc. were locally purchased. At the same time it is argued that broadcast media recording monitoring systems are not available in India. These contradictory statements were described in the written explanation. But no evidence of purchase of such computer parts or materials or any other assets were produced. But in support of claim of depreciation, a certificate from some Core Media Systems was furnished, certifying that the appellant was able to obtain the material in second hand market. This kind of certificate neither had any evidentiary value nor it provides any evidence that the machinery or parts of machinery were procured. Again at the cost of repetition I mention that there is no evidence of purchase of assets or purchase of materials for installation of assets. The depreciation cannot be granted on the basis of a fictit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter merger for consideration. As seen from the assessment order, there is no mention of any of these issues of either Laser Dot Ltd., or merger of Esha News Monitoring Services Private Limited. Accordingly, we are not going into those aspects as AO has not considered these issues at all in the assessment order. 6. Ld.DR however, submitted that assessee has not furnished any of the details and it is for assessee to submit the details so that the depreciation can be verified and allowed. Ld.DR referred to the detailed order of the CIT(A) and failure of assessee in submitting the details to support the action of the AO. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the documents placed on record. It is a fact that assessee has not furnished either details of the assets or the values of individual assets or any invoices in order to support the acquisition of computers for the purpose of business. As seen from the Balance Sheet of Laser Dot Ltd., the WDV as per the books of account as on 31-03-2010 was only ₹ 23,46,947/-. There are no additions to the fixed assets during the year as far as the statement of accounts of Laser Dot Ltd., was concerned. This indicates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
