9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 2005-06 2. The only effective grievance of the assessee-firm in this case relates to disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 5,19,716 on the cost of additions to the machinery of Rs. 23,15,348 made during the year. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation of Rs. 5,19,716 on the cost of assets added by the assessee during the year amounting to Rs. 23,15,348, on the ground that the assessee did not furnish relevant bills/invoices for purchase of machinery in spite of opportunities given. 4. On appeal before the CIT(A), it was submitted during the course of survey action on the premises of the assessee on 14.9.2006, the Department had made out list of papers and documents found as per Annexure-I, impounded the same and kept in the custody of the Assessing Officer. When an attempt was made to trace the relevant invoices from out of the impounded material, the relevant folder containing those invoices was not traceable. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer, he simply expressed helplessness, stating that whatever impounded material was handed over to him by his predecessor, was given to the assessee, and if relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impounded material. We find merit in the contention of the assessee that for the assessee's inability to produce the original invoices in respect of machinery/assets added during the year, Department too is responsible, and as such, there is a reasonable cause for the assessee for not producing the same at the relevant point of time before the Assessing Officer. Now that the assessee is in a position to produce such invoices, copies of which duly certified by the Assessing Officer are also furnished in the paper-book, and a cursory glance at those invoices clear reveal the relevant machinery/assets having been acquired during the previous year relevant to the year under appeal, we deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh determination. We do so accordingly, and direct the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh, and allow the claim of the assessee for depreciation on the machinery/assets added during the year, after due verification, in accordance with law and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee's grounds in this appeal are allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such persons who gave the gifts, nor any other details or documentary evidence to substantiate their claim. Some of the gifts have been claimed to have been received by way of cheques as well. However, no details were furnished in that behalf. When the assessees make a claim of having received monies/gifts, burden of proof lies on them to establish the correctness of such claim, by furnishing relevant details and necessary evidence. Assessees have failed to discharge the onus that lay on them in that behalf. Even before us, the assessees could not substantiate the claim of having received the gifts. Considering the magnitude of the amount of gifts claimed, and in view of assessee's failure to discharge the onus of establishing the identity of the donors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the gifts claimed, we cannot find fault with the view taken by the Assessing Officer in not accepting the gifts claimed to have been received by the assessee. Explanation of the assessee of having received the gifts also needs to be viewed in the backdrop of the need for the assessees to explain the sources for the amounts of capital introduced by them in the firm, M/s. Prem Sharma C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the amount was received by way of cheques from her father and the sources for the same was out of his own savings, assessee could not furnish any other evidence in support, to substantiate her claim of having received the gifts in question. In the circumstances, holding that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the credit appearing in the capital account of the firm in her name, the Assessing Officer made addition in that behalf, under S.68 of the Act, while completing the assessment in her hands, for the assessment year 2005-06. 17. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer disbelieving the gifts claimed by the assessees. 18. Aggrieved, assessees preferred the present appeals before us for the assessment year 2005-06. 19. We heard both sides and perused the impugned orders of the Revenue authorities and other material available on record. Though the assessees have claimed to have received gifts in question from their respective fathers, and as such, there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the donors, assessees have failed to establish either the credit-worthiness of the donors or the genuineness of the transactions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
