TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three years from the date of the purchase, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claimed depreciation by the assessee on those computers. There is no dispute that to examine genuineness of depreciation claimed under the provisions of sec. 32 of the Act, all that needs to be established is ownership of depreciable assets and their use in the business of the assessee. The Pune Bench of the ITAT in the case of U.B. Engineering Ltd. vs. JCIT (2007 (9) TMI 339 - ITAT PUNE) where the genuineness of purchase of certain gas cylinder was questioned in a claim of depreciation for the same, held that the ownership of the gas cylinder, their use in the business of the assessee and genuineness of payment for such gas cylinders was deemed to be sufficien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 does not cover the issue - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.3153/Del/2013, ITA No.2112/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2015 - Shri I.C. Sudhir And Shri J.S. Reddy JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR For the Respondent : S/Shri Vikas Srivastava, Parag Mohanty Ms. Varsha Bhattacharya, ARs ORDER Per I.C. Sudhir: JUDICIAL MEMBER These are the cross-appeals wherein the Revenue has questioned First Appellate Order on the following grounds: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of depreciation on computers of ₹ 30,82,560 through the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the purchase of ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich depreciation was claimed. In this regard, he referred contents of para Nos. 3.1 to 5.7 of the assessment order. He submitted that onus of establishment of genuineness of the claim was lying upon the assessee to which it has failed to. The Learned CIT(Appeals) was thus not justified in deleting the disallowance. 4. The Learned AR on the other hand tried to justify First Appellate Order reiterating the submissions made before him. He submitted that all the necessary details of the purchase of the computers were filed before the Assessing Officer and the payments were made through cheques. The company from whom 100 computer systems were purchased had raised an invoice for payments and had also levied value added tax on the same, a copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter systems from Lavena Sales Co. Pvt. Ltd. like invoice for payment raised by the seller company wherein they had also levied value added tax on the same, their address and that the amount for these computers was paid through a cheque which was duly cleared from the bank account of the assessee. The assessee had also obtained copies of its VAT registration, memorandum and articles of association etc. Only because the said company was not found on the given address after the lapse of three years from the date of the purchase, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claimed depreciation by the assessee on those computers. There is no dispute that to examine genuineness of depreciation claimed under the provisions of sec. 32 of the Act, all that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that the license was valid for a period outside the relevant period. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals) as well as Ld.A.O., while disallowing the Revenue expenditure incurred by the appellant, have erred in ignoring the fact that the appellant was maintaining its books of account on cash basis of accounting and thus, the expenditure cannot be disallowed on the basis of period of software license . 8. Ground No.1 is general in nature, hence, does not need independence adjudication. 9. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 involve the issue as to whether the Learned CIT(Appeals) was justified in upholding the disallowance of proportion of the Revenue expenditure incurred by the assessee towards payment of software license fee on the basis that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of ₹ 32,58,667 belong to financial year 2009-10. Therefore, only ₹ 45,62,133 is being allowed as expenses and remaining amount of ₹ 32,58,667 is being added to the income. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has upheld this finding of the Assessing Officer. The orders of the authorities below on the issue is reasoned one, hence, we are not inclined to interfere therewith. The cited decision of the ITAT in the case of assessee itself for the assessment year 2008-09 does not cover the issue. In para No. 18 of the said order, as referred by the Learned AR, the issue involved was as to whether the software expenses claimed was Revenue or capital in nature. Thus, this decision does not help to the assessee on different issue in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
