TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the invoices. The assessee points out that the said additional evidence may be admitted and the Assessing Officer may verify the same and allow depreciation as per law. We find merit in the plea of assessee. The assessee had purchased the fixed assets during the instant assessment year, against which it could not produce the bills before the CIT(A) since the same were not traceable. The additional evidence filed by the assessee in respect of various fixed assets is admitted. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the evidences available with the assessee and allow depreciation on such assets, for which the assessee has filed the copy of invoices. Addition made on account of hawala purchases - Held that:- The assessee was asked to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal-I, Aurangabad further erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 5,05,908/- on account of alleged inflated purchases. The addition is not well founded and deserves to be deleted. 3. The ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and hence, the same is dismissed. 4. The issue in ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is against non-allowance of depreciation of ₹ 4,25,181/-. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee for the year under consideration had filed the return of income at ₹ 7,17,390/-. The said return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer received informatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ext issue raised by the assessee was against the addition on account of inflated purchases of ₹ 5,05,908/-. The assessee explained that it had filed the return of income declaring ₹ 2,92,210/- on 29.09.2009. The said return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and the income was computed at ₹ 7,17,390/-. The difference in income was due to the disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 4,25,181/- claimed by the assessee. It was pointed out that an application was filed with CPC, Bangalore on 11.08.2010 and on 05.04.2011 for allowing claim of depreciation. The assessee submitted that the application moved by the assessee before the CPC, Bangalore was rejected since the case of assessee was taken up for scrutiny. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission of additional evidence, under which it has summarized the details of fixed assets purchased during the year and has submitted the invoices traced by the assessee in respect of part of the assets. In respect of assets under the head electric fittings , the assessee has not placed any invoices. In respect of lorry purchased, copy of agreement is filed and in respect of machinery purchased, the assessee has filed some of the invoices but complete details have not been filed. In respect of moulds purchased, the assessee has attached photocopies of all the invoices. The assessee points out that the said additional evidence may be admitted and the Assessing Officer may verify the same and allow depreciation as per law. We find merit in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer had received information from the Sales Tax Department in respect of certain purchases made by the assessee from hawala parties. The assessee was asked to establish the delivery of goods and furnish the evidences in this regard in order to prove its case of purchases made. However, the assessee claimed that though the delivery of cement was made, but it had no evidence by way of lorry receipts or delivery challans. The case of assessee before us is that information available with the Assessing Officer was not confronted to the assessee except the list of hawala dealers. He admits that the statement was shown. The assessee further points out that the VAT which was not paid by the said hawala dealer has been paid by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
