9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on technical reasons. If the assessee had not complied strictly to the provisions of rule 46A, learned Commissioner (Appeals) could have pointed out the same to the assessee for enabling him to submit the additional evidences complying to the provision of rule 46A. From the photocopy of the documentary evidence produced before us in the from of a paper book it appears, the purchase invoice of two trucks are in the name of assessee. Similarly, R.C. Book also bear the name of the assessee. Further, certificate issued by the financing company G.E. Capital indicates that the assessee has repaid the amount to the finance company and no dues against the assessee is outstanding. These documentary evidences prima facie proves assessee s owner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upporting evidence. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim when depreciation is specifically shown in final accounts of company whose accounts have been audited. 2. Brief facts are, the assessee a company is engaged in the business of transportation and commission agent. In the assessment year under consideration, assessee filed its return of income on 19th November 2006, declaring total income at ` nil. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, on verifying assessee s claim of depreciation noticed, it has claimed depreciation on 13 trucks purchased during the year out of which the assessee had produced supporting evidences in respect of 11 trucks. Whereas, no supporting evidence in respect of purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee produced photocopy of these evidences, but he did not take note of these documentary evidences for the technical reason that assessee had not filed application for admission of additional evidences under rule 46A. As far as the allegation of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), that assessee did not produce original purchase invoice, R.C. book, etc., learned Authorised Representative submitted, since the drivers of the trucks have to carry the original R.C. book and insurance documents, the assessee could not produce them at the time of hearing before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, photocopies were produced. He, therefore, submitted, as the assessee is the owner of two trucks, it is legally entitled to claim depreciation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal evidences complying to the provision of rule 46A. From the photocopy of the documentary evidence produced before us in the from of a paper book it appears, the purchase invoice of two trucks are in the name of assessee. Similarly, R.C. Book also bear the name of the assessee. Further, certificate issued by the financing company G.E. Capital indicates that the assessee has repaid the amount to the finance company and no dues against the assessee is outstanding. These documentary evidences prima facie proves assessee s ownership over the two trucks. However, admittedly, these are only photocopy submitted by the assessee. Therefore, to prove the authenticity of documentary evidences submitted before the Departmental Authorities, it is ess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
