9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - on account of bogus claim of depreciation. ii) The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time or during the hearing of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee e-filed a digitally signed return of income on 26.9.2008 returning income of Rs. 81,29,459/-. The return of the assessee was processed under the provisions of section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") on 06.8.2009 wherein, the returned income was accepted. From the details filed during assessment proceedings AO observed that the assessee is the authorized bottler of soft drinks for M/s Coca Cola India Private Limited. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no direct dealing with M/s Praneet Enviroquips Private Limited, and as such assessee was not in a position to comment on the invoice supplied by said Shri Narender Mahindra. However, the AO did not accept the submissions made before him. According to the AO as the assessee failed to submit any evidences in the form of any payment having been made to the vendor towards this purchase and he disallowed the claim of depreciation of the assessee on 'ETP System' of Rs. 81,67,860/- vide his assessment order dated 15.12.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by assessing the total income at Rs. 162,97,320/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 05.4.2016 has allowed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the said Shri Narender Mahindra. However, the AO did not accept the submissions made before him and therefore, AO has observed that as the assessee failed to submit any evidences in the form of any payment having been made to the vendor towards this purchase and rightly disallowed the claim of depreciation of the assessee on 'ETP System' of Rs. 81,67,860/-, which does not need any interference on our part. Therefore, he requested that the appeal filed by the Revenue may be allowed by cancelling the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and restore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that he has filed the written submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ahindra of Delhi, and the goods were received on 22.8.2007 in Aurangabad. We further note from the assessment order that assessee stated that it was concerned with the material received alongwith the bill of M/s Praneet Enviroquips Private Limited. Assessee stated that since the bill was of M/s Praneet Enviroquips Private Limited and was supplied by Mr. Narender Mahindra, and the material was received in good condition, the assessee has no reason to doubt the veracity of the invoice. On the contrary the AO also stated in the impugned order that assessee failed to submit any evidence to substantiate the fact that any equipment has reached the assessee at all on the date so claimed. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has examined the bill of M/s Praneet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ahindra who expired on 07.10.2009 before the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, payment made to M/s. Mahindra Engineering Corporation for purchase of the equipments cannot be brushed aside. This fact is not denied that assessee's company was engaged in the business of soft drink bottling and was using the Effluent Treatment Plant, for treatment of effluent generated during the bottling work of M/s. Coca Cola India Private Limited. It was noted that bottling plant of the assessee company was required to meet the parameters of the Pollution Control Board. A team of the Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. visited the unit of the assessee at Aurangabad on 18.12.2006 and found some deficiency in the plant including ETP. In order to meet out the deficiency find out by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atment Plant as per directions of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. Merely because a bill submitted by the assessee was bogus or fabricated cannot negate the other evidences such as the inspection carried out after repair of the ETP plant by the officials of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, carriage of the various parts of the plant through transporters from Delhi to Aurangabad, payments made by the assessee through banking Channel to M/s Mahindra Engineering Corporation etc. Thus, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that repairs were carried out in the ETP plant by the assessee and the same deserves to be allowed. Hence, the AO was rightly directed to allow the depreciation as claimed by the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), which d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
