TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that the assessee had two large generators of 500 KVA and that these generators were run for substantive number of hours and that there was substantial consumption of fuel. There is no denying of the fact that the trial run production was carried out by the assessee. There was a pilot lot of goods produced by the assessee and there was also a sale of goods produced by the assessee. Except for finding fault with the evidences produced by the assessee, there is no material with Revenue to controvert the stand of the assessee. Thus in our considered view, once we have come to a conclusion that the assessee's business was set up prior to 31st March, 2005 and that the plant and machinery were ready to use and that the trial run has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,31,247/-. The AO vide his order dt.28.12.2007 passed u/s 143 (3) of the Act determined the total income at Nil inter-alia rejecting the claim of the assessee for business loss to the extent of ₹ 8,09,383/- and depreciation to the tune of ₹ 1,36,21,869/-. 2.1. The AO rejected the claim of the assessee that manufacturing activity has been started. Para 6 of his order is extracted for ready reference. 6. The assessee's claim that manufacturing activity has been started is not acceptable because of the following reasons: i. No production record has been produced; ii. No wages register or evidence of payment of wages is produced; iii. No electricity connection has been taken; iv. No evidence has been furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rance of probability regarding installation of machinery and manufacturing activity does not indicate the circumstances to be in favour of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee Shri Ved Jain filed a paper book running into 187 pages and drew the attention of the Bench to various evidences placed from pages 72 to 122 and argued that (a) the construction of the factory was completed before January, 2005; (b) the installation and operation of various machinery was completed before the end of the year 2005. The total cost of the product was ₹ 2,60,99,000/- and was to be handed over by 19.12.2014 where as by December, 2004 a payment of ₹ 2,37,43,692/- had already been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account at page 133 of the paper book records that 10 units were for home use. 4.3.1. On excise sales tax of returns, she submitted that these are declarations given by the assessee and hence have no evidentiary value. 5. Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record, orders of lower authorities, case laws cited, we hold as follows. 6. The only issue that has to be adjudicated, is whether the business of the assessee was set up as on 31st March, 2005. A perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) demonstrates that the Revenue does not dispute the propositions that depreciation has to be granted when the plant and machinery of the assessee company is ready for use. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
