TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Year 2004-05, the Assessing Officer disallowed ₹.32,95,324/- being 1/5th of expenses of ₹.1,69,10,939/- claimed as deduction u/s. 35DDA of the Act and these expenses represent the payments made to the employees on their separation from the company and not forming part of VRS. Therefore, since the Assessing Officer had already disallowed expenses by reopening the assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05, there is no need for reopening and examining the issues again hence to that extent we reverse the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). Disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets - Held that:- The basic documents like Bills, vouchers in respect of the fixed assets were not produced either before the Assessing Officer or before the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce with law for the Assessment Year 2008-09. - ITA NO.3815/MUM/2012 And ITA NO.5574/MUM/2014 - - - Dated:- 16-3-2018 - SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri K.K. Ved for The Revenue : Shri V. Vidhyadhar ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. These two appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld.CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2007-08 2008-09. 2. In so far as the appeal for the Assessment Year 2007-08 is concerned, the first issue in the grounds of appeal of the assessee is in respect of short granting of deduction u/s. 35DDA of the Act. 3. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the Assessment Order passed on 24.03.2014 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2004-05, the Assessing Officer disallowed ₹.32,95,324/- being 1/5th of expenses of ₹.1,69,10,939/- claimed as deduction u/s. 35DDA of the Act and these expenses represent the payments made to the employees on their separation from the company and not forming part of VRS. Therefore, since the Assessing Officer had already disallowed expenses by reopening the assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05, there is no need for reopening and examining the issues again hence to that extent we reverse the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). 9. Coming to the appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09, the first ground is again in respect of short gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f vouchers and bills, assessee did not prove that it had in fact purchased the assets and put to use and hence the depreciation was rightly denied by the Assessing Officer/Ld.CIT(A). 14. On hearing both the parties and pursing the orders of the authorities below, we are not inclined to accept the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The basic documents like Bills, vouchers in respect of the fixed assets were not produced either before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld.CIT(A) to prove that the assessee had in fact acquired assets. In the absence of such documentary evidence, the depreciation to an extent of ₹.62,95,593/- cannot be allowed, and the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly restricted the depreciation on the assets for w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imed in the statement showing computation of the total income. The submissions of the assessee were not appreciated by the Ld.CIT(A) and not entertained the claim observing that this issue does not arise from Assessment Order. In the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P.) Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the Appellate Authorities but is also entitled to raise additional claims before them. Therefore, since the assessee made this claim for additional depreciation before the Ld.CIT(A), he should have entertained or rejected the claim of the assessee. In the circumstances, we restore this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
