TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the end of the relevant assessment year and the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding of fact to the effect that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for the year under consideration. On behalf of the appellant nothing has been pointed out to dislodge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal nor has it been pointed out that the Tribunal has placed reliance upon any irrelevant material or that any relevant material has been ignored. Conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal being based on concurrent findings of fact upon appreciation of the material on record, no infirmity can be found in the finding r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the claim of the assessee was incorrect and not allowable and there was escapement of income? ( B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 3,38,32,680/- in respect of depreciation on Wind Mill without appreciating the fact that the assessee has raised the first Bill No.15.04.2006 which indicated that the Wind Mill did not start generation before 31.03.2006? 2. The assessment year is 2006-07 and the corresponding accounting period is the previous year 2005-06. The assessee filed its return of income on 16.12.2006 showing total income at ₹ 9,53,34,670/-. The assessment came to be framed under section 143(3) of the Act on 19.12.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a letter from the Superintending Engineer, Tirunelveli, Electricity Distribution Circle, Tirunelveli-11 wherein it was mentioned that 852 units of power was generated till 6.4.2006. It was contended that the Assessing Officer has found that in the said letter, it is nowhere mentioned that there was production of any units till 31.3.2006. It was submitted that the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence in support of its case that electricity was generated prior to 31.3.2006 and that in absence of any such supporting evidence being produced, the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the claim of depreciation of wind power generation unit. It was submitted that the Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in holding that the assessee wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmissions of the assessee has observed that the assessee has not produced any evidence in support of electricity generated upto 31.3.2006 and disallowed the claim of depreciation of ₹ 3,38,32,680/- and added it to the total income. In assessee s appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has found that the assessee had furnished various evidences to show that both the wind mills were commissioned on 20.3.2006 and started producing power by 31.3.2006 and set aside the disallowance. 5. Insofar as the validity of the reopening is concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the notice was issued on 14.2.2013 which was beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year under consideration. After consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 to 15.04.2006 and satisfactorily proved that Wind Power Mill has commissioned on 20.03.2006 and has started generation of power from 20.03.2006 onward. 6. These demonstrating evidences were considered by the Assessing Officer at the time of the original assessment proceedings and allowed the claim of depreciation for the year under consideration. 6. On the basis of such findings recorded by it, the Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment on the false premise that the wind power generation plant was not in operation during the year under consideration was against the documentary evidence examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of original proceedings and upheld the order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal being based on concurrent findings of fact upon appreciation of the material on record, no infirmity can be found in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the reopening of assessment was invalid. 9. Insofar as the claim for depreciation is concerned, since the matter stood concluded by the order passed by the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny assessment, the question of going into the issue once again did not arise. In any case both, the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner (Appeals), have found that the relevant evidence was produced by the assessee on record to establish that the operation of the wind mill had commenced prior to 31.3.2006 and cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
