TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd assessee company was directed to remove the same with in a period of 30 days. This all confirmed that assessee was to get repaired its Effluent Treatment Plant as per directions of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. Merely because a bill submitted by the assessee was bogus or fabricated cannot negate the other evidences such as the inspection carried out after repair of the ETP plant by the officials of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, carriage of the various parts of the plant through transporters from Delhi to Aurangabad, payments made by the assessee through banking Channel to M/s Mahindra Engineering Corporation etc. CIT(A) has rightly observed that repairs were carried out in the ETP plant by the assessee and the same deserves to be allowed. Hence, the AO was rightly directed to allow the depreciation as claimed by the assessee by the CIT(A), which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the action of the CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 3932/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2019 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing confronted the assessee explained to the AO that the said equipment was purchased from one Sh. Narender Mahindra of Delhi and was received in Aurangabad on 22.08.2007 who provided the Bill of M/s Praneet Enviroquips Private Limited. However, assessee could not confirm as to from where the said Shri Narender Mahindra had procured the material i.e. from M/s Praneet Enviroquips Private Limited or from somewhere else. Assessee also explained to the AO that it had no direct dealing with M/s Praneet Enviroquips Private Limited, and as such assessee was not in a position to comment on the invoice supplied by said Shri Narender Mahindra. However, the AO did not accept the submissions made before him. According to the AO as the assessee failed to submit any evidences in the form of any payment having been made to the vendor towards this purchase and he disallowed the claim of depreciation of the assessee on ETP System of ₹ 81,67,860/- vide his assessment order dated 15.12.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by assessing the total income at ₹ 162,97,320/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and the same may be treated as his arguments before this Bench. He draw our attention towards the written submissions filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) which are at pages 1-36D of the Paper Book filed before the Bench which contains total pages 1-77 in which he has attached the various documentary evidences supporting the impugned order and requested to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and appeal of the revenue may be dismissed. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the orders of the revenue authorities as well as the Paper Book filed by the assessee. We find that assessee claimed 100% depreciation of the cost of asset described as Effluent treatment Plant System (in short ETP ) purchased during the assessment year under consideration which amounts to ₹ 81,67,860/-. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that on query made u/s 133(6) of the Act M/s. Praneet Enviroquips Pvt. Ltd. did not confirm the supply of effluent treatment plant to the appellant. When confronted these facts, assessee filed various evidences which were placed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hindra Engineering Corporation through banking channel except an amount of ₹ 5,565/- in cash. Assessee has also placed a copy of the death certificate of Mr. Narender Mahindra who expired on 07.10.2009 before the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, payment made to M/s. Mahindra Engineering Corporation for purchase of the equipments cannot be brushed aside. This fact is not denied that assessee's company was engaged in the business of soft drink bottling and was using the Effluent Treatment Plant, for treatment of effluent generated during the bottling work of M/s. Coca Cola India Private Limited. It was noted that bottling plant of the assessee company was required to meet the parameters of the Pollution Control Board. A team of the Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. visited the unit of the assessee at Aurangabad on 18.12.2006 and found some deficiency in the plant including ETP. In order to meet out the deficiency find out by the technical team of Coca Cola, assessee was required to renovate its plant on urgent basis and therefore, the quotations were called. M/s Mahindra Engineering Corporation were the lowest one as such the order was placed on them by the assessee for supply of said equipments. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
