Shri Bhupendra B.Modi, Surat V. The Addl.CIT.,Circle-6, Surat

ITA 1062/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5679 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JYOTI LAXMI
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Wrong claim
• Section: 133A; 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : D BENCH : A HMEDABA D CAMP AT SURAT (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, J.M. & HON'BLE SH RI D.C. AGRAWAL , A.M.) I.T.A. NO. 1062/AHD./2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-2005 BHUPENDRA B. MODI, SURAT -VS.- ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (PAN : ABPPM 9001 K) RANGE-6, SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RASESH SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JYOTI LAXMI, SR. D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 31.12.2007 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-IV, SURAT FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. VARIOUS GROUNDS BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL AR E AS UNDER :- (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 90,204/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF JOB CHARGES. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 15,02,1 91/-FOR UNEXPLAINED TRANSACTION. (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 3,45,60 9/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. (4) ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS, 52,200/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOANS. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS . 3,20,000/- ON DECLARATION OF RS. 12,80,000/- IN FORM OF MACHINERY. 2 ITA NO. 1062/AHD/2008 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, ON BEHALF OF A SSESSEE SHRI RASESH SHAH, LD. COUNSEL APPEARED AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE BE PERMITT ED TO WITHDRAW GROUNDS NO. 2, 3 & 4 OF THIS APPEAL. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SMT. J YOTI LAXMI, SR. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT SHE HAS NO OBJECTION. IN VIEW OF THIS, ALL THESE THREE GROU NDS ARE DISMISSED BEING WITHDRAWN. 4. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN GROUNDS NO.1 & 5 ARE THAT A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21.01.2004. DURING THE SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE DECLARE D UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.1.05 CRORES. THE SAID DISCLOSURE WAS TO BE BIFURCATE WITH REGARD TO FORM OF INVESTMENT BY VARIOUS PERSONS OF THE GROUP AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.19 LACS WAS DECLARED BY T HE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THE EFFECT OF SURVEY WAS NULLIFI ED BY WAY OF SUPPRESSION OF GORSS PROFIT OF THE NORMAL BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT QUANTITATIVE DETAIL WAS NOT MAINTAINED, NO PRODUCTION REGISTER WAS PRODUCED AND THERE WAS N O CORRELATION BETWEEN CONSUMPTION OF YARN AND PRODUCTION. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED UNACCOUNTED MA CHINERY AT RS.12,80,000/- WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THE SAME WA S NOT FOUND BY THE SURVEY PARTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS PER IMPO UNDED MATERIAL, THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME ROUTED THROUGH THE NOTEBOOK AND DIARIES WAS TO BE T AKEN INTO ACCOUNT INDEPENDENTLY WHICH MEAN THAT TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE OF THE TUNE OF RS.15,02,191/- (RS.12,80,000/- + RS.2,22,191/-) AND THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED AT THE RATE OF 25% ON THE SO-CALLED UNACCOUNTED MACHINERY AT RS.12,80, 000/- WAS ALSO TO BE DISALLOWED. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERV ED THAT GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY RS.20,24,219/- WHICH INCLUDED THE DISCLOSU RE OF RS.19,00,000/- MEANING THEREBY THAT THE PROFIT WAS CONSIDERABLY REDUCED IN THE POST SUR VEY PERIOD. FURTHER, THE JOB CHARGES SHOWN DURING THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER TO MARCH WERE NOT CON SISTENT WITH THE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.90,204/- ON THIS ACCOUNT. APART FROM THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADD ITION OF RS.15,02,191/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME MENTIONED IN THE IMPOUNDED DOCUM ENTS AND UNEXPLAINED CREDITS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.3,45,609/- BESIDES UNSECURED LOANS AT RS.RS.52,200/- WAS ALSO MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN DISBELIEVING THE DECLARATION OF RS.12.80 3 ITA NO. 1062/AHD/2008 LACS IN MACHINERIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED T O IDENTITY ANY PARTICULAR ASSETS IN WHICH SUCH AN INVESTMENT WAS MADE. THE ASSESSEE INVESTED ITS U NACCOUNTED INCOME IN PURCHASE OF MACHINERY AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT LYING IN CASH BUT WAS INVESTED IN VARIOUS ASSETS. THE RETURNED INCOME WAS LESS THAN THE DECLARATION MADE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ONLY BECAUSE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.3.2 LACS ON MACHINERY. FURTHE R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING JOB WORK FOR FIVE MONTHS SINCE SURVEY WA S CONDUCTED AT THE END OF JANUARY AND THIS ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER RESULTED IN DOUBLE TAXA TION FOR THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER TO JANUARY. 6. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) UPHELD THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE DETAILED REASON S GIVEN IN PAGE 2 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS INVOKING THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE IT ACT SINCE THE ACCOUNTS WERE NOT SATISFACTORY AT THE TIME OF S URVEY AND VARIOUS DEFECTS WERE OBVIOUSLY FOUND AND THAT IS WHY THE APPELLANT MADE A DISCLOSURE OF MORE THAN RS 1 CRORE FOR THE GROUP DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN THE FO RM OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN STOCK, UNACCOUNTED RECEIVABLES, UNACCOUNTED CASH TRANSACTI ONS ETC. THE APPELLANT HAD MADE DECLARATION AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AMOUNTING TO RS.1 9 LACS. HOWEVER, THE EFFECT OF THIS DECLARATION GOT NULLIFIED BY A WRONG CLAIM OF INVES TMENT OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN MACHINERY ON WHICH DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED. N O SUCH MACHINERY WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND THEREFORE THE APPELLANT CANNOT B E ALLOWED TO MAKE A FALSE CLAIM SUBSEQUENTLY. THE ENTIRE DECLARATION WAS IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME, SUNDRY CREDITORS, UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE ETC. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. FURTHER, THE ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED CASH TRANSACTIONS WHICH COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED HAS ALSO BEEN RIGHTLY MADE AS ALSO THE UN ACCOUNTED RECEIVABLES. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY WORKED OUT THE SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION DURING THE LAST FIVE MONTHS OF THE YEAR. I AM, THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT THE A.O.S ACTION IN MAKING SUCH ADDITIONS IS TOTALLY JUSTIFIED AND THE ENTIRE ADDITION IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR REQUE STED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH WAS THAT THE A.O. ERRED IN DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS.3,20,000/- BY NOT ACCEPTING DECLARATION OF RS.12 ,80,000/- IN THE FORM OF MACHINERY. I DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS IN THIS GROUND SINCE THE SAM E HAS ALREADY BEEN ANALYZED AND REJECTED BY THE A.O. IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS OR DER, I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AND I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT IN VESTMENT OF RS.12,80,000/- WAS MADE IN MACHINERY IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS, SINCE THE DISCLOSUR E WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT BECAUSE OF DEFECTS IN THE ACCOUNTS AND PHYSICAL INVENTORY O F STOCK AND UNACCOUNTED CASH TRANSACTIONS AND NOT REGARDING ANY INVESTMENT IN SO -CALLED MACHINERY. THIS IS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT WHICH HAS NO BASIS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS REJECTED. THIS GROUND, THEREFORE, FAILS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4 ITA NO. 1062/AHD/2008 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, ON BEHALF OF A SSESSEE SHRI RASESH SHAH, LD. COUNSEL APPEARED AND POINTED OUT THAT RECEIPTS OF JOB CHARG ES ARE SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND PAYMENTS ARE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR ESTIMATING JOB CHARGES IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER ,2003 TO MARCH, 2004. NO SUCH MATERIAL WAS FOUND INDICATING SUPPRESSION OF JOB CHARGES IN THE SURVEY CONDUCTED ON 21.01.2004. THE DISCLOSURE OF RS.19 LAKHS WAS MADE VOLUNTARILY. THE REFORE, THE LD. COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT EITHER THE ADDITION BE DELETED AND IN CASE THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED, IN THAT EVENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING WIT H DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. WITH REGARD TO NON-ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.3,20,000/- ON MACHINERY, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF DIS CLOSURE OF RS.19,00,000/-, RS.15,02,191/- RELATES TO UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM TRANSACTIONS MEN TIONED IN IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS. NO OTHER ASSETS WAS IDENTIFIED AGAINST RS.15,02,191/- EXCEPT CASH OF RS.2,22,191/-. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS IDENTIFIED THE ASSET BEING INVESTMENT IN MACHINERIES OF RS.12,80,000/-. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FRO M BUSINESS OF WEAVING OF ARTIFICIAL SILK CLOTHES ON JOB WORK BASIS. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED W EAVING MACHINERIES OUT OF BOOKS WHICH HAVE BEEN USED FOR PURPOSE OF MANUFACTURING OF ART SILK CLOTH ON JOB WORK BASIS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REG ARDING PURCHASE OF MACHINERY MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. HE POINTED OUT THAT NO CASH IS FOUND, THEREFORE, PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE CASH IS UTILIZED. THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AS HE WA S OF THE OPINION THAT DISCLOSURE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DUE TO DEFECTS IN ACCOUNTS AND PHYSICA L INVENTORY OF STOCK AND UNACCOUNTED CASH TRANSACTIONS AND NOT REGARDING ANY INVESTMENT IN SO -CALLED MACHINERY. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE MADE THE FOLLOWI NG SUBMISSIONS :- (A) NO COGENT REASONS WERE GIVEN BY BOTH THE DEPART MENTAL AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. ACCORDING TO A SSESSING OFFICER, THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IS UNTENABLE IN RESPECT OF BIFURCATION GIVEN IN RESPECT OF MACHINERIES. (B) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT DISCLOSURE RELATES TO I NVESTMENT IN STOCK AND CASH. 5 ITA NO. 1062/AHD/2008 HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO UNACCOUNTED STOCK FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF SURVEY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING JOB WORK. (C) IN RESPECT OF DISCLOSURE OF RS.19,00,000/-, THE ASSESSEE IDENTIFIED THE FOLLOWING ASSETS :- (I) SUNDRY CREDITORS - RS. 3,45,609/- (II) UNSECURED LOANS - RS. 52,200/- (III) MACHINERIES - RS.12,80,000/- (IV) CASH - RS. 2,22,191/- NO BIFURCATION OF DISCLOSURE WAS ASKED BY THE SURVE Y TEAM AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING NO OPTION BUT TO FURNISH BIFURCATION AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE BIFURCATION IS REFLE CTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. (D) UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS TRANSACTION OF RS.15,02,19 1/- REPRESENTS THE SOURCE OF INCOME. THEREFORE, IF THE MACHINERIES ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE, SOURCE OF INCOME OF RS.15,02,191/- AND APPLICATION OF INCOME COMES T O RS.6,20,000/-. THUS OUT OF RS.19,00,000/- ASSESSEE WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY TAX ONLY ON RS.15,0 2,191/- IF THE ASSESSEES BIFURDCATION OF MACHINERY OF RS.12,80,000/- IS NOT ACCEPTED. (E) THE ASSESSEE INVESTED IN MACHINERIES INCLUDING DISCLOSURE AMOUNTING TO RS.12,80,000/- IS ONLY RS.19,02,054/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.15,84,070/-. THE ASSESSEES INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF JOB WORK IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT INVESTMENT IN MACHINERIES. 9.1. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE, IT WAS REQUESTED THAT T HE ADDITION OF RS.90,204/- BE ADMITTED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEPRECIA TION OF RS.3,20000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON MACHINERIES. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, SMT. JYOTI LAXMI, SR. D.R. A PPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). SHE POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE NEVER MADE A STATEMENT THAT MACHINERY WAS PURCHASED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LD. D. R. POINTED OUT THAT THE LEARNED 6 ITA NO. 1062/AHD/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN COGEN T REASON FOR UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF JOB WORK CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.3,20,000/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.12,80,000/-. THEREFORE, SHE SUGGESTED THAT THE V IEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) BE UPHELD. 11. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 9 & 10 AT PARA 8.1 HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF JOB CHARGES AND PRODUCTION OF GREY IN METERS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NO TE THAT IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER TO MARCH, 2004, JOB CHARGES HAS BEEN REDUCED. ON THIS BASIS, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED THE JOB WORK CHARGES. IN OUR OPINION, THE ADDITION OF RS.90,204/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS A CCOUNT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS ALSO GIVEN COGENT REASON FOR CONFIRMING THIS ADDITION. WITH REGARD TO THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE T O ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BIFURCATED THE DI SCLOSURE AMOUNTING TO RS.19,00,000/- IN PARA 9(C) ABOVE (SUPRA), THEREFORE, WE INCLINE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). RESULTANTLY, GROUND NO. 1 IS REJECTED . 12. COMING TO THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THE GROUN D NO. 5, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF RS .1.05 CRORES WAS MADE. SURVEY PARTY NEVER MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN THE BIFURCATION OF THAT UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.1.05 CRORES AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE BIFURCATION WAS FURNISHED LATER ON. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS.19,00,000/- AND BIFURCATION O F THE DECLARATION GIVEN IS AS UNDER AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER :- (I) SUNDRY CREDITORS - RS. 3,45,609/- (II) UNSECURED LOANS - RS. 52,200/- (III) MACHINERIES - RS.12,80,000/- (IV) CASH - RS. 2,22,191/- RS.19,00,000/- 13. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ITSELF, IT WAS FOUN D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROCESSING OF MAN-MADE FABRICS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.90,204/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSI ON OF JOB CHARGES. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED 7 ITA NO. 1062/AHD/2008 DEPRECIATION ON MACHINERIES, NO EFFORTS WERE MADE T O FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING MACHINERY OR NOT. PRIMA FACIE, IT APPEARS THAT CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION IS DISALLOWED ON DOUBTS AND SUSPICION. NO OTHER ASSET AGAINST DISCLOSURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.12,80,000/- FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE SURVEY TOOK PLACED ON 21.01.2004. NO EVIDENCE OF MACHINERY PURCHASED WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE MACHINERY WA S PURCHASED PRIOR TO 01.10.2003 OR THEREAFTER. WE, THEREFORE, PRESUMED THAT MACHINERIE S WERE PURCHASED ON OR AFTER 01.10.2003. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO 50% OF NORMAL DE PRECIATION. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION @ 50% OF NORMAL DEPRE CIATION ON MACHINERIES OF RS.12.80 LAKHS. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 02.07.201 0 SD/- SD/- (D.C. AGRAWAL) (T.K. SHARMA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 02 / 07 / 2010 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE DEPARTMENT. 3) CIT(A) CONCERNED, (4) CIT CONCERNED, (5) D.R., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGI STRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD LAHA/SR.P.S.