M/s. Ankith Engineering Corporation, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1858/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1191 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURU BHASHYAM JT
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWIN R
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.1858/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 M/S ANKITH ENGINEERING CORPORATION OLD NO.1A, NEW NO.3A ARCOT ROAD VADAPALANI CHENNAI 600 026 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD III(1) CHENNAI [PAN AAGFA 8212J ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWIN R. CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GURU BHASHYAM, JT. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 21-03-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-03-2013 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), VIII, CHENNAI, DATED 27.7.2012. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF ` 6,67,765/- ON MACHINERY. I.T.A.NO.1858/12 :- 2 -: 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED TWO MACHINERIE S TO AUGMENT NEW BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES, VIDE INVOICE DATED 24.3 .2001 AND 25.3.2001 BEARING NO.VML 810 AND SML 30 FROM M/S LO KESH MACHINES LTD. HYDERABAD, FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` 59,11,360/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THESE MACHINES AMOUNTING TO ` 6,67,765/- WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON TH E GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THA T THE MACHINERIES WERE PUT TO USE AND CORRESPONDING PRODUCTION WAS MA DE BEFORE THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE FROM M/S VIGNESH MACHINE TOOLS DATED 7. 3.2013 AND CONFIRMATION FROM M/S SAME DEUTZ-FAHR INDIA (P) LTD . REGARDING DELIVERY OF THE MACHINERIES BEFORE THE END OF THE F INANCIAL YEAR. THE LD.A.R HAS PRAYED FOR ADMISSION OF THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS THE SAME COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE T IME OF HEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A). HE SUBMITTED I.T.A.NO.1858/12 :- 3 -: THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THEN TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF GRANTING OF DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ABOVE STATED MACHINES. 6. THE LD.D.R VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE MACHINERIES WERE PURCHASED IN 2001 AND NOW IT IS 2013 AND NO PURPOSE WILL BE SERV ED BY REMANDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACT S OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED TWO MACHINERIES FOR ` 59,11,360/- AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF ` 6,67,765/- ON THE SAME WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT NO EVID ENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE MACHINERIES WERE P UT TO USE AND CORRESPONDING PRODUCTION WAS MADE BEFORE THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. I.T.A.NO.1858/12 :- 4 -: 9. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW FILED BEFORE US ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE F ROM M/S VIGNESH MACHINE TOOLS DATED 7.3.2013 AND CONFIRMATION FROM M/S SAME DEUTZ-FAHR INDIA (P) LTD. REGARDING DELIVERY OF TH E MACHINERIES BEFORE THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND PRAYED FOR ADMISSION OF THESE EVIDENCES AND RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR READJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF GRANTING OF DEPRECI ATION TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID MACHINERIES AFTER VERIFYING THESE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT WILL BE IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR READJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF GRANTING OF DEPRECIATIO N ON MACHINERIES TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCES FILED BEFORE US. WE, THEREFORE, ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES, RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR PROPER VERIFICATION AND ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE AFRESH. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW PROPER AND R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. I.T.A.NO.1858/12 :- 5 -: 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 22 ND OF MARCH, 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 22 ND MARCH, 2013, RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR