2012 (11) TMI 159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ss of Rs.2,40,05,449/- The case was selected for scrutiny.   3. First ground of the Revenue reads as under:- " On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.23,351/- made on account of depreciation on electrical installation. The assessee has claimed excess depreciation. No explanation was furnished during the assessment proceedings regarding excess claim of depreciation. Against the applicable rate of depreciation @ 15% the assessee has claimed 25% and therefore, the disallowance was made." 4. During the course of assessment proceedings A.O. observed that assessee has claimed depreciation on electrical installation at 25%.A.O. was of the view that the depreci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order of CIT (A) and therefore this ground of Revenue is dismissed. 8. Ground No.2 of the Revenue reads as under:- " On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,23,68,527/- made u/s.41(1) of the Act. These were trading liabilities since very long and no confirmations from the creditors or any other documentary evidence in support of the claim of the assessee were filed during the assessment proceedings." 9. During the course of assessment proceedings A.O. noticed that creditors aggregating to Rs.1,23,68,527/- were outstanding since very long time. The assessee submitted that due to financial difficulties faced by it the amounts are outstanding and are payable by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A.R. submitted that the assessee has not written-back the amount in its books, and the outstanding amount as on the balance sheet date are still payable. From the table as reproduced by CIT (A) on page 3 & 6 of order, he pointed out that in some cases the assessee had in fact made payments subsequently. He also relied on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nitin Garg. (Tax Appeal No.2428 to 2431 of 2010) order dated 11-4-2012. He thus supported the order of CIT (A). 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The factual matrix of the case is that the creditors were appearing in the books of the assessee since earlier years. In the absence of balance confirmations from the creditors or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X