TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Depreciation on motor car - denial of claim as assessee has received only remuneration and interest from the partnership firm M/s. Jay Kay Enterprises and the vehicle is not used for the purpose of own business but for the purpose of the business of the firm - Held that:- Since the assessee did not give any submission before the CIT(A) on this issue either written or oral, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the assessee. Even before me also the assessee did not make any submission on this issue. Under these circumstances the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No.3972/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 31-12-2018 - SH. R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. For The Appellant : Sh. S. C. Singhal, CA For The Respondent : Sh. D. S. Rawat, Sr. DR ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the CIT (A)-20, New Delhi relating to A. Y. 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal No.1 to 4 raised by the assesee are as under :- 1. The ITO as well as CIT (A) erred in making / confirming an addition ₹ 21,65,606/- u/s 68 read with section 1155BBE merely on the basis of doubt/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he trade patterns of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Vis a vis BSE SENSEX shows that the stocks of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. were neither moving along with the SENSEX, nor the financial of the company show any reason for this extraordinary performance by its stock. The assessee acquired 5000 equity shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. for a consideration of ₹ 10,000/- at a cost price of ₹ 2/- per share on 09.04.2011 as per the debit note furnished by the assessee from M/s Shreeji Broking Pvt. Ltd. in cash. The shares were sold during the financial year 2013-14 on 07.06.2013 for a total consideration of ₹ 21,75,606/- resulting in appreciation in value of shares by approximately 216.5 times or, say the value of shares increased by a humongous 21650%. Further, the company has shown very nominal assets and the value of reserves is in negative figures which does not corroborate with the steep growth rate in the share prices of the company: 3.1 The Assessing Officer further noted that various search survey operations have been conducted by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai Ahmedabad and the modus operandi of providing accommodation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Supreme Court of India on Black Money has also pointed out the above mentioned modus operandi in the Third SIT report on Black Money. Further, SEBI as surveillance measure banned the trading of securities of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. and suspended M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. with effect from 07/01/2015. Though Assessing Officer has mentioned this fact in assessment order in para 12 but the order passed by the BSE has not been given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. In view of the above and relying on various decisions, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Referring to page 1 to 3 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the bench to the purchase bill of Shree Broking Private Limited, payment receipt and copy of account for purchase of shares. Referring to page 4 to 7 of the paper book he drew the attention of the bench to the transfer of shares to the assessee. Referring to page 9 of the pape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Shah Vs. ITO (2017) 77 taxmann.com 260 (Ahd) 18. ITAT Mumbai Bench in Mukesh R. Marolia Vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No.1201/Mum/2005 order dated 15.12.2005 19. Kolkata High Court in CIT Vs. Carbo Indl Holdings LTd. (200) 244 ITR 422 (Cal). 20. ITAT Kolkata Bench D in Dolarani Hemani Vs. ITO in ITA No.19/Kol/2014 order dated 02.12.2016 21. ITAT Mumbai Bench F in Farrah Markar Vs. ITO in ITA No.3801/Mum/2011 order dated 02.12.2016 22. ITAT Mumbai Bench H in ITO Vs. Arvind Kumar Jain HUF in ITA No. 4862/Mum/2014 order dated 18.09.02017 23. Punjab Haryana High Court in Pr. CIT Vs. Prem Pal Gandhi order dated 18.01.2018 in ITA No.95/2017 ( O M) 24. ITAT Hyderabad Bench A in Smt. Sarita Devi and Smt. Nitika Kumari Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1228 and 1229 /Hyd/2016 order dated 05.05.2017 25. ITAT Hyderabad Bench A in ITO Vs. K. Ramakrishna Reddy in ITA No.1614/Hyd/2017 order dated 29.05.2018 26. ITAT Kolkata SMC in Prakash Chand Bhutoria Vs. ITO in ITA No.2394/Kol/2017 order dated 27.06.2018 27. ITAT, Kolkata Bench C in Navneet Aggarwal Vs. ITO in ITA No.2281/Kol/2017 order dated 20.07.2018 28. Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Smt. Pooja Aggarwal in ITA No.385 and 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atistical purpose. 10. Ground No.5 of appeal by the assessee reads as under :- The Car depreciation claimed at ₹ 62210/- has been disallowed in full. It was claimed as deduction from business income (salary/interest from partnership firm) for the use of car for earning that business income. The asset in owned by appellant and was used for earning business income hence depreciation u/s 32 is allowable. 11. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed that assessee has claimed depreciation of ₹ 62210/- on motor car. Since the assessee is a partner in M/s. Jay Kay Enterprises, no depreciation is allowable in the case of partners and such depreciation has to be claimed as business expenditure in the partnership firm only. He therefore, confronted the same to the assessee. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee the Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation of ₹ 62210/- and added to the same to the total income of the assessee. 12. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under :- 7. In ground No.5 the appellant has c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
