TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a part of the income in the earlier years. Thus, as the onus was on the appellant to prove the genuineness of the claim, the ground of appeal is dismissed as nothing was placed on record to prove that the amount regarding Bank Guarantee written off was actually part of the income in the current or earlier year(s) - Decided against assessee. Disallowance on account of depreciation - assessee could not prove the higher depreciation with material evidences even the facts as per audit report claimed depreciation - HELD THAT:- The assessee has not given any supporting evidences to substantiate its contention that the disallowance of depreciation was uncalled for when the closing WDV of Assessment Year 2012-13 has been taken as closing WDV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is grossly erred in sustaining the disallowance of ₹ 103664/- on account of Depreciation. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing with the permission of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench. 2. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notice sent by speed post duly served and the acknowledgement is returned therefore, it is presumed that the notice duly served to the assessee. It is seen from the records that the assessee has not appeared despite being given various opportunities therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudication. 7. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is against the sustaining the disallowance of ₹ 6,60,000/- on account of Bank Guarantee written off. 8. Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of authorities below and submitted that the assessee could not prove its claim with the supporting evidences. 9. I have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that Ld.CIT(A) has given finding on fact by observing as under:- 4.0 Ground no. 3 of the appeal is directed against the disallowance of expenses claimed for DBD Bank Guarantee written off amounting to ₹ 6,60,000/-. The appellant has claimed an amount of ₹ 6,60,000/- in the P L acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arlier years. Thus, as the onus was on the appellant to prove the genuineness of the claim, the ground of appeal is dismissed as nothing was placed on record to prove that the amount regarding Bank Guarantee written off was actually part of the income in the current or earlier year(s). 10. The finding on fact by the Ld.CIT(A) is not rebutted by the assessee by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of Ld.CIT(A) and the same is hereby, affirmed. Ground No.2 of assessee s appeal is dismissed. 11. Ground No.3 is against the sustaining the disallowance of ₹ 1,03,664/- on account of depreciation. 12. Ld.Sr.DR supported the order of authorities below and submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch are reproduced below:- 7.1 This submission of the assessee was considered but the same is not acceptable because of the following factual position:- a) In the computation of income filed with the return of income alongwith letter dated 30.09.2013, the income has been shown at ₹ 30,25,517/-, in which depreciation as per Income Tax Rules has been claimed at ₹ 9,10,491/-. b) The said depreciation chart of ₹ 9, 10,491/- is filed by the assessee with the Tax Audit Report which is also duly signed by the Tax auditors. c) The other alleged depreciation chart is not a part of Tax Audit Report, nor the same is signed by the Tax Auditors. Even in this depreciation chart the assessee has claimed depreciation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Year 2011-12. All other additions and adjustments for purchase and sales have been accepted, depreciation of ₹ 10,14,155/- has been claimed as the figure had been wrongly taken from the computation of taxable income given erroneously as against the correct computation which was subsequently submitted and reason for difference in computation and return for income was taken for wrong depreciation. I find that the auditor has computed depreciation of ₹ 9,10,491/- in the audit report. The assessee has not furnished any certificate from the Auditor as there was any error or mistake in his audit report. Therefore, in the absence of such certificate by the Tax Auditor, I do not see any reason to interfere in the findings of the author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
