9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls, independent valuation report in respect of assets leased out to the companies as well as inspection reports pertaining to pre search and post search period. On the basis of the aforesaid material on record, it was held that the transactions of the assessee with the companies in question was genuine and the assets, which were leased out were in existence and the assessee was entitled to depreciation. The aforesaid finding of fact has been affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Thus, the matter stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact, which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be either based on no evidence or perverse. Even otherwise, no perversity in the findings could be pointed out to us. It is well settled in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Years 1999-2000 on 30.12.1999, in which total income of ₹ 63,44,12,149/- was declared. In the assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Act the Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claimed on the assets leased to M/s Rajender Steels Pvt. Ltd., M/s Kedia Castle Dellon Industries Ltd. and M/s Kedia Mills and Distilleries Ltd. on the ground that the assets were not found to be in existence in a search conducted under Section 132 of the Act by the Department in March 1998 in the premises of Rajender Group and in September 1996 in Kedia Group of Companies. The assessee thereupon filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Years 1999-2000. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed vide order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the assessee has been able to corroborate its claim of existence of leased equipment with incontrovertible evidence and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation of ₹ 1,56,67,772/- for Assessment Year 1999-2000 on the assets leased out to M/s Kedia Castles Dellon Industries Ltd. and M/s Kedia Mills and Distilleries Ltd. In the result, the appeal was allowed. Being aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal by order dated 11.12.2015 affirmed the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals preferred by the revenue. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material on record, it was held that the transactions of the assessee with the companies in question was genuine and the assets, which were leased out were in existence and the assessee was entitled to depreciation. The aforesaid finding of fact has been affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Thus, the matter stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact, which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be either based on no evidence or perverse. Even otherwise, no perversity in the findings could be pointed out to us. It is well settled in law, that this court in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Act would not interfere with the finding of fact until the same is perverse [See: SANTHOSH HAZARI VS. PURUSHOTTAM TIWARI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
