Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 637 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of depreciation in respect of furniture and fixtures in the office and interest - addition of property was found residential and was not used for the purpose of office/profession - Assessee relied upon the assessment order for A.Y. 2010-2011 to show that A.O. did not disallow depreciation and interest - Held that:- As noted here that the A.O. did not consider the issue of interest on depreciation in his order under section 143(3). It is a brief order passed by him without reference to deduction of the interest and depreciation. Further, the facts are totally different in assessment year under appeal because A.O. was deputed to make factual inspection of the property in question to justify the claim of the assessee of use of the residential property for business purpose only. This fact was not considered in A.Y. 2010-2011. Therefore, when new facts have been brought on record, the rule of consistency would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering all CIT(A) correctly disallowed the balance amount of interest of ₹ 33,84,098 as having been incurred for purpose other than that of business. The depreciation on same analogy for sum of ₹ 2,54,511/- was rightly disallowed. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that assessee did not produce any evidence that Ranikhet premises is used for the purpose of business. Therefore, depreciation have been correctly disallowed - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of service tax - assessee did not produce any evidence before authorities below to justify his claim of deduction - Held that:- Claim of assessee cannot be verified whether service tax is paid for professional receipts earned by the assessee in assessment year under appeal. A.O. also noted that the total service tax payable by the assessee comes to ₹ 5,57,360 but assessee claimed payment of ₹ 1,83,856. Therefore, facts were not verifiable from the explanation of assessee. The assessee filed copy of the bank certificate of Axis Bank before Ld. CIT(A) which also did not reveal anything in favour of the assessee. The assessee has filed copy of the bank certificate from Axis Bank which only confirm that assessee paid service tax payment. But it is not clarified as to on which professional income assessee has paid the service tax. In the absence of clarification of the payment of service tax for earning professional income, no interference is called for in the matter. - Decided against assessee.
|