TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee offering any explanation as to why the statement cannot be relied upon, no fault can be found on the reliance upon the statement of the Director of M/s. Omega. Further, so far as request for cross examination is concerned, we find that Appellant-Assessee, during the first round of proceedings before the Assessing Officer did not raise any such issue. At that point of time, the person who make the statement, could have been produced by the Assessing Officer. It was only in the second round of proceedings when the Appellant-Assessee was not able to contact the Director of M/s. Omega, that they came up with a request for his cross examination. Therefore, the submission on part of the Appellant that the delay has led to it being unable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challan of the supplier, payment made from the Bank i.e. copies of the Bank statements? 3. The Appellant is engaged in the business of financing and Leasing. In the subject Assessment Year, the Appellant-Assessee claimed depreciation on Flameless Furnace (Furnace) at 100% of its cost. The furnace was leased to one M/s. Omega Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chhenai (M/s. Omega). During the Assessment Proceedings, the Assessing Officer relied upon the statement of Director of M/s. Omega made under Section 133A of the Act to the effect that no machinery was taken on lease by them as in fact, no machinery had been purchased by the Appellant-Assessee. This statement was made available to the Appellant during the Assessment Proceedings and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Director of leasee, concluded against Appellant-Assessee and denied the claim for depreciation. 6. Being aggrieved, the Appellant-Assessee filed Appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in its order, recorded the fact that the various documents called for could not be furnished by the Appellant-Assessee. Further, it records the fact that the Appellant-Assessee was not able to explain even the whereabouts of the Furnace which is alleged to be owned by it even after such a long period. Consequently, on consideration of evidence on record including the statement of the Director of M/s. Omega, the order of the Assessing Officer was upheld. 7. On further Appeal by the Appellant-Assessee, the Tribunal by the impugned order, on consideration of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant-Assessee, during the first round of proceedings before the Assessing Officer did not raise any such issue. At that point of time, the person who make the statement, could have been produced by the Assessing Officer. It was only in the second round of proceedings when the Appellant-Assessee was not able to contact the Director of M/s. Omega, that they came up with a request for his cross examination. Therefore, the submission on part of the Appellant that the delay has led to it being unable to produce evidence is of no avail as the delay was in seeking cross examination by it. Further, the documents which were produced were considered along with and/or the facts viz: nonproduction of vital documents. This coupled with the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
