TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs. The major purchases were from M/s. Maharashtra Infotech India Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 4,53,200. Information under section 133(6) was called for from the said party to verify the genuineness of purchases. That party did not confirm the transactions by filing copy of accounts. Assessee was asked to produce the party. It was informed that the party had wound up and directors have left for USA. Inspector was deputed to ascertain and it was ascertained that director Shri Joshi was now running the business in the name and style of M/s. Easy Life India Ltd. against M/s. Maharashtra Infotech India Ltd., which has been closed down. Summons were issued to Mr. Joshi. He did not confirm the sale of computers. Assessing Officer further noted the maj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mputers would be offered for tax under section 41(1) of the Act, during the year relevant to the assessment year 2005-06. Accepting the above, CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 4,53,200, to allow depreciation on the cost of Rs. 1,00,000 that is to say Rs. 60,000 against the claim of Rs. 2,71,920 and also directed to ensure that the excess depreciation claimed in the subsequent years is offered for taxation as income for assessment year 2005-06. Aggrieved by the above order, revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Contending parties reiterated their respective stand. 7. Considering the rival submissions, I find no reason to disturb the order of the first appellate authority. There is a clear fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee on the ground that identity and credit-worthiness, was not established. CIT(A) held, Assessing Officer was aware that both the creditors were directors of the assessee-company. During the assessment proceedings assessee furnished complete address of both the creditors. Copies of the acknowledgments of the return filed for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 were also furnished. Payments were made by account payee cheque. Hence, he held, assessee has discharged the burden of proof cast upon them. Assessing Officer has no evidence to the contrary to prove that the cash credits were not genuine. Hence, CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved by the above order, revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. Contending parties reiter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
