9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank accounts indicating sufficient funds and there are no circumstances indicating that the funds in their bank accounts is assessee s money. The assessee has thus established the source of the creditors. As pointed out for the assessee, the PAN and the addresses of the creditors was very much available with the AO and he did not choose to issue any summons calling upon them to prove their source or any other explanation. In these circumstances, as assessee has duly discharged his onus all satisfactorily the credits in question under section 68 of the Act. Consequently, the aforesaid addition being credits from Mr. Ajit Hebbar and Ms. Mridula Hebbar are also deleted. We find support from the decision of Orissa Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd., (s 1986 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] . Disallowance of depreciation - AO disallowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation on the ground that the assessee did not file any evidence to substantiate the claim for depreciation - HELD THAT:- As the assessee has established that it is entitled to claim depreciation. The depreciation in our view has to be allowed as claimed by the assessee. - ITA No.314/Bang/2021 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2022 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Smt. Lalitha, the credit in question does not stand explained. In so far as the loan from Mr. Ajit Hebbar and Ms. Mridula Hebbar is concerned, they had paid the sums directly to the assessee through banking channels. The CIT(A) was of the view that their creditworthiness was not proved before the AO by filing copy of their ITRs. The CIT(A) therefore held that the assessee has not satisfactorily explained credits in question. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of three loans availed by the assessee, the assessee had filed the following documents: Sl. No. Lender Name Amount lent Documents submitted 1. Ram Mohan 10,00,000 1. Loan Agreement 2. PAN 3. Address 4. Confirmation 5. Affidavit 6. ITR of Lalitha 7. Bank Statement showing remittance 2. Mrudula Hebbar 10,00,000 1.Loan Agreement 2.PAN 3.Address 4. Confirmation 5.Affidavit 6. Bank Statement showing remittance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in the case of Kumar Nirman and Nivesh Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020)425 ITR 486 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that when an assessee in support of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of a credit had supplied copies of Balance Sheet and P L A/c and also copies of return of income of the creditor, the assessee has proved identity and creditworthiness of the creditor as well as the genuineness of the transaction and it is for the Revenue to conduct an enquiry and prove that the transaction in question was not genuine or identity of creditor was not established or the creditworthiness of the creditor has not been established. The Hon ble Court took note of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC). 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, while relying on the order of the CIT(A) submitted that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and therefore the addition has to be sustained. He also made a reference to the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kumar Nirman and Nivesh Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020)425 ITR 486 judgment dated 25.08.2017. He referred to para 42 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO. In so far as this issue of disallowance of depreciation is concerned, the facts are that during the previous year, the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.9,61,797/- as per the Act. The depreciation charged in the P L A/c was a sum of Rs.1,29,485/-. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation on the ground that the assessee did not file any evidence to substantiate the claim for depreciation. The sum disallowed by the AO was a sum of Rs.8,32,317/- being the difference between depreciation as per the income tax Act of a sum of Rs.9,61,797/- and the depreciation debited in the P L A/c of Rs.1,29,485/-. 11. Before the CIT(A), the assessee produced evidence in the form of invoices showing purchase of assets on which depreciation was claimed. In this regard, it is worthwhile to observe that depreciation had been claimed by the assessee on the following assets: Sl. No. Asset Name Depreciation as per IT Act 1. Furniture Fixtures 1,915 1. Vehicles 3,66,727 1. Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cles is concerned, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the evidence of purchase of the vehicles was duly filed by the assessee and the AO has also accepted ownership of the vehicle. The only dispute was with regard to use of the vehicles. It was submitted that evidence of receipt of hire charges was filed before the AO proves use of the vehicles for the purpose of business of the assessee and therefore the disallowance of depreciation cannot be sustained. Learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 14. I have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and I am of the view that the evidence on the record clearly shows that the assessee was owner of the items of assets on which depreciation was claimed. The AO in the first assessment report dated 17.09.2019 has made the following submissions with regard to claim for depreciation: 2) With respect to the depreciation claimed, the assessee's major claim includes vehicles, app development costs, computers etc, The same were examined. As per the order sheet and the discussions with the director, it was asked to furnish the details when the vehicles were put to use, the assessee failed to provide any e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
