TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals are filed by the revenue against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [hereinafter in short Ld.CIT(A) ] dated 05.04.2019 for the A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 in deleting the disallowance of the depreciation of ₹ 2,17,500/- and ₹ 4,02,375/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively claimed on the bogus purchase of machinery from M/s. Galaxy Corporation. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that, assessee engaged in the business of printing and designing, filed return of income on 29.09.2010 and 30.09.2011 declaring NIL income for the A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12. The returns were processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, Assessing Officer received information from the DGIT(Inv.,), Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, Assessing Officer treated ₹ 81,988/- and ₹ 89,166/- being 25% of non-genuine purchases of ₹ 3,27,821/- and ₹ 3,56,664/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 respectively as non-genuine. Assessing Officer further disallowed depreciation @15% on the machine purchased from M/s. Galaxy Corporation to an extent of ₹ 2,17,500/- and ₹ 4,02,375/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 respectively. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) considering the evidences and various submissions of the assessee sustained the action of the Assessing Officer in adding 25% of the alleged bogus purchases and deleted the disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 2,17,500/- and ₹ 4,02,375/- cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eated as bogus. The AO has not made any inquiry from the bank in this regard. The disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 2,17,500/-, in respect of equipment purchased in during the year is not warranted. In this background, disallowance of deprecation of ₹ 2,17,500/- is deleted. Therefore, Ground of Appeal No. 2 is allowed. A.Y. 2011-12 5.1. Ground of Appeal No. 2 is in respect of disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 4,02,375/-. The AO noted that the appellant has claimed to have purchased a machine from a hawala party in AY 2010-11 and the depreciation of such purchase was not allowable. He therefore disallowed depreciation to the extent of ₹ 4,02,375/- computed on the WDV of ₹ 26,82,500/- @ 15% was disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by Bank of Maharashtra is not warranted. The disallowance of depreciation was deleted. Facts remaining same, the disallowance of deprecation of ₹ 4,02,375/- is deleted. Therefore, Ground of Appeal No. 2 is allowed. 6. On a careful perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the reasons given therein, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of the depreciation of ₹ 2,17,500/- and ₹ 4,02,375/- claimed for the A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 respectively, on the purchase of machinery from M/s. Galaxy Corporation. Grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed for both Assessment Years. 7. In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
