TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The onus was on the assessee to substantiate its claim for the expenditure incurred on the construction of additional building by producing the relevant documentary evidence such as bills, vouchers etc. - The statement of the assessee and indication in the relevant seized documents was not sufficient to establish that the amount was incurred by assessee on account of construction of additional factory building and that too to its existing building in MIDC, Dombivali. It is not a case where the statement or relevant seized documents are partly accepted and partly rejected by the authorities below as sought to be contended by the assessee – the statement and the relevant seized documents were not sufficient to establish the case of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was conducted in the premises belonging to JIMTEX Group including the case of the assessee. Pursuant to the search, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued by the AO, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income for both years under consideration i.e. AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 on 12.01.2009 declaring total income of Rs.6,28,580/- and Rs.1,04,59,364/- respectively. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee has claimed to have paid brokerage charges of Rs.1,30,625/- and Rs. 57,757/- to one Shri Ishwarchand Goel in the previous year relevant to assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. Since the similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sively incurred for the business purpose and any services rendered by Shri Ishwarchand Goel. Therefore, the AO has made disallowance in these years also Before me the appellant has submitted that the payment was made by cheque and TDS was deducted was deducted but no evidence was submitted to prove any services rendered by the broker. Consequently the appellant has failed to submit any evidence to prove that this expenditure was wholly and exclusively incurred for the business purpose and what services rendered by Shri Ishwarchand Goel to whom the brokerage payment was made . The onus is always on the assessee to submit evidence before the AO before claiming any deduction as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Calcutta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. In the appeal for assessment year 2008-09 being ITA No.7054/Mum/2010, which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-41, Mumbai dated 30.8.2010, the solitary issue raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of Rs.3,10,800/- made by AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) on account of depreciation on building. 7. During the course of search, certain loose papers inventorised as pages 7 to 16 were found and seized from the possession of the assessee showing receipts in cash aggregating Rs.40,06,000/-. In the statement recorded during the course of search u/s 132(4) of the Act, the assessee explained that the transactions reflected in the said lose papers as that of sale of scrap comprising of drums, screens, nickel, plastic bags, damag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed an amount of Rs.31,08,000/- incurred for addition to the factory building. The AO has cleared for the details and bills etc to prove the genuineness of the expenses incurred for the addition to the factory building. However, the appellant has failed to submit any evidence to substantiate its claim except the argument that the amount in addition of the building was incurred out of the additional income declared on account of sale of scrap and waste in AY 2007-08. As per the provision of the Income Tax Act to the onus us on the assessee to prove the documentary evidence before the AO before claiming any deduction. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Calcutta a Agency 19 ITR 119 has held that the onus is on the assessee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n perusal of relevant material on record, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by AO on account of assessee s claim for depreciation on additional construction of factory building in MIDC, Dombivili. Although it was indicated in the relevant seized documents that the unaccounted sales proceeds of scrap were partly used for building purposes and the assessee also reiterated this position in his statement recorded under section 132(4), we are of the view that the same by itself was not sufficient to establish that the amount of Rs.31,08,000/- was incurred by the assessee on the construction of additional factory building in MIDC, Dombivili. The onus in this regard was on the assessee to sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
