9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nes owned by the assessee and forming part of its 'Block of assets' at the customers site, being a part of the business of the assessee, and rather as a matter of fact a modus operand! adopted by the assessee to boost its sales of reagents, therefore the latter being found to have duly satisfied the requisite conditions contemplated u/s. 32(1) is thus entitled to deprecation on the said diagnostic machines. We thus in light of our aforesaid observations set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee. Difference in Form 26AS and the receipts shown by the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find that no new facts have been brought to our notice. Therefore, we do not find a reason to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the authorities below. Ground 2 of the assessee is dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 1463/Mum/2021 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2022 - SHRI LALIET KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shalin Divedia For the Respondents : B.K. Bagchi ORDER Per Gagan Goyal, AM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 27/06/2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 60,698 7 Prakash Pathology and Radiology Pvt Ltd 49,500 29,202 20,298 8 Clinitech Laboratory 49,475 35,000 14,475 TOTAL 1,88,922 The aggregate difference of ₹ 1,88,922/- was added by the assessing officer as unaccounted receipts as the assessee did not file any documentary evidence. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on both the counts. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the customers of the assessee are either the stand alone pathology laboratories or the hospitals with such in-house laboratories, which carry out the diagnosis of a medical disease by subjecting the patients sample with the use of reagents in the diagnostic machines/instruments. The modus operand! adopted by the assessee for running its business of trading in diagnostic mach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cious and intentional modus operandi adopted by the assessee to boost the sales of the reagents, which can safely be characterized as a strategic approach of the assessee prompted by business prudence in the very interest of its business. The Ld. A.R in order to fortify her contention that the diagnostic machines in the normal course of the business of the assessee, with the intent to boost the sale of reagents were strategically deployed at the customers site on zero rental and zero deposit basis, in lieu whereof the customer remained under an obligation not only to carry out exclusive purchase of the reagents from the assessee, but also remained committed to a minimum guaranteed purchases from the assessee during the period of the agreement, therein drew our attention to Page 73 of the 'APB', which is an annexure forming part of one of the agreement executed by the assessee with a customer during the year under consideration. It was submitted by the Ld. A.R that in the backdrop of such a strategical arrangement carried out in the course of and in very interest of its business, the test of user for business purposes of such diagnostic machines so installed at the customers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the said schedule. The Ld. A.R further to support his aforesaid factual contention and remove any scope of doubt, took us to Annexure 'B' (Additions to the 'Fixed assets') which therein revealed that the addition of ₹ 52,85,721/- (supra) to the 'Plant Machinery as on 01.04.2006, did form part of the total additions of ₹ 1,15,79,767/- (supra) reflected in 'Schedule 5' (supra). Thus to be brief and explicit the Ld. A.R well demonstrated before us that the complete details as regards the diagnostic machines of ₹ 52,85,721/- (supra) formed part of the 'Block of assets' of the assessee, and had been installed at the customers sites on reagent sale basis during the year under consideration, were very much available before the lower authorities. It was thus submitted by the Ld. A.R that in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position, the observations of the CIT(A) that the assessee had failed to furnish details and adduce any evidence in support of his contention that the diagnostic machines installed at the customers site were part of its 'Block of assets', were proved to be blatantly contrary to the material available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
