TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that:- We find that the assessee had not produced documentary evidences about the expenditure to prove that same was incurred wholly and exclusive for the business purposes. The bank statement, produced by it before the AO indicates the expenditure incurred but it does not prove the fact of incurring of expenditure for the business. Therefore, in our opinion the order of the FAA does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Upholding the same, we decide ground of appeal against the assessee. - I.T.A./2011/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2017 - Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member For The Revenue : Shri Purshottam Kumar For The Assessee : S/Shri Paras Savla and Pratik Poddar Order u/s.254(1)of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings, that assessee was able to trace out some details from bank, that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had enhanced the disallowance. The Departmental Representative(DR) stated that the issue of additional evidence could be decided on merits by the Bench. 2.2. After hearing the rival submissions,we are of the opinion that the additional evidences produced by the assessee(Pg.91-176)should be admitted as per Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules,as the documents are crucial to decide the issue before us.The assessee has shown a reasonable cause for not producing the same before the AO/FAA.Therefore,same are taken on record. 3. First Effective Ground of appeal is about disallowance of claim of depreciation to the extent of ₹ 29.65 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k statement to the AO for examination and submitted a remand report. Vide his letter dated 17.9.2013, the AO submitted the report in that regard. He forwarded a copy of remand the report to the assessee and issued a show cause notice to it to explain as to why depreciation, amounting to ₹ 23.71 lakhs allowed by the AO, without verifying the bills and vouchers should not be disallowed and enhancement to that extent should not be made. The assessee filed its submissions before the FAA. After considering the available material the FAA held that the assessee had claimed depreciation of ₹ 56.47 lakhs on the additional assets of ₹ 1,16,97,716/- (plant machinery) and ₹ 1,82,76,432/- (furniture and fixture), that the AO ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant, machinery,furniture,that evidences could not be produced due to change in management. The DR supported the order of the FAA. 3.2. We have already admitted the additional evidences produced before us.The FAA had no occasion to verify the correctness of the claim made by the assessee in absence of the said documents.Therefore,we are of the opinion that,in the interest of justice,matter should be restored back to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication.He would decide the issue after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after considering the additional evidences produced before us.Ground no. is decided in favour of the assessee,in part. 4. Next ground of appeal is about further disallowance of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payments were accounted for in the books of accounts and were duly audited, that the business of the company was acquired and none of the employees,who were handling the tax/accounts,had continued. After considering the submission of the assessee, the FAA held that the AO had given reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee to submit the details of payments, that no documentary evidences submitted to verify the payment of ₹ 93, 945/-, that the onus was on the assessee submitted the complete documentary evidences before the AO, that the assessee had failed to discharge its onus. Finally, he upheld the order of the AO. 5.2. Before us, the AR stated that card was given to the employee, that the expenditure was incurred for b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
