The ACIT,(OSD)-Range-4, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Mamta Machinery Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1932/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89417 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIMESH YADAV SR DR
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., , BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A.NO.1667/AHD/2011A.Y.2008-09 2. ./ I.T.A.NO.1932/AHD/2011A.Y.2008-09 1. MAMATA MACHINERY PVT.LTD. 5/1/1-A, PHASE-I GIDC VATVA AHMEDABAD-380 006 2. ACIT (OD)-I RANGE-4 AHMEDABAD / VS. 1.ACIT (OSD)-I RANGE-4 AHMEDABAD 2.MAMATA MACHINERY PVT.LTD. AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCM 8241 P ( # / APPELLANTS ) .. ( $% # / RESPONDENTS ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.J. SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI NIMESH YADAV, SR.DR &'() / DATE OF HEARING 15/04/2015 *+,-() / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13/05/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE CROSS-APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VIII, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 18/05/2011 PERTAINING TO ITA NO.1667/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO.1932/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) MAMATA MACHINERY PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT (OSD)-I ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. SINCE BOTH THE APPEAL S ARE ARISING OUT OF THE SAME ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THESE WERE HEARD T OGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA N O.1667/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. YOUR APPELLANT BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PAS SED BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-VIII, AHMEDABAD PRESENTS THIS APPEAL O N FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-VIII, AHMEDABAD, HAS ER RED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF RS.17,14,615/- BEING THOUGH EXPLAINED. THE ADDITION MADE BE DELETED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTE R, EDIT, DELETE, MODIFY OR CHANGE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L AT THE TIME OF OR BEFORE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2.1. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 13/11/2010, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.26,86,817/- BY INVOKING THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND ALSO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,2 8,175/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLE. AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE ITA NO.1667/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO.1932/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) MAMATA MACHINERY PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT (OSD)-I ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.14A OF THE ACT TO RS.17,14,61 5/-. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DI SALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLE AMOUNTING TO RS.3,28,175/-. NOW, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN CROSS-APPEALS BEFOR E US. 3. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.17,14,615/- BY I NVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 3.1. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), IT WAS CATEGORICALLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE EXPENSES OF RS.88,56,044/-. IT WAS PO INTED OUT THAT THE TOTAL INTEREST EXPENSES INCURRED WAS OF RS.88,56,044/- AN D THE BREAK-UP OF THE EXPENSES ARE SHOWN SUCH AS, (I) INTEREST ON CASH C REDIT OF RS.20,39,607/-, (II) INTEREST ON PACKING CREDIT LIMIT OF RS.24,87,2 10/-, (III) INTEREST TO OTHER OF RS.1,66,241/-, (IV) INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOAN O F RS.10,54,049/-, (V) INTEREST ON TEM LOAN OF RS.25,74,770/- AND (VI) INT EREST ON VEHICLE LOAN OF RS.5,34,167/-. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23,87,072/- IN RESPECT OF I NTEREST EXPENSES U/S.14A OF THE ACT UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE EN TIRE INTEREST EXPENSES ITA NO.1667/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO.1932/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) MAMATA MACHINERY PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT (OSD)-I ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - APPEARING UNDER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS RELA TED TO INVESTMENT AND, ACCORDINGLY, WRONGLY APPLYING RULE 8D AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE EXCLUDED THE IN TEREST PAID FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING CAPITAL FACILITY WHILE CALCULATI NG THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED THE T ERM LOAN FOR EXHIBITION. THE INTEREST OF RS.25,74,770/- IS PAID FOR SUCH TER M LOAN AVAILED FOR EXHIBITION PURPOSE. HE SUBMITTED THAT RULE 8D APPL IES TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT OR SHALL NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME , AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE FIRST DAY AND THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THEREFORE, ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED ON INVESTMENT ON WHICH TAX FREE INCOME I S EARNED. RULE 8D PROVIDES THE APPLICABLE RATE I.E. 0.5% ON THE AVERA GE INVESTMENT ON WHICH INCOME EARNED IN EXEMPTED. HE SUBMITTED THAT OUT O F RS.7,43,19,897/-, THE AO HAS TAKEN THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.5,99,49,081/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY INCLUDED THE I NVESTMENT OF RS.2,16,92,081/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVERAGE VALUE O F INVESTMENT AND THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED. HE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE AO FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE INTEREST E XPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN FOR THE SPECIFIC BUSINESS PURPOS ES. THERE WAS NOT NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO FAILED TO TAKE NOT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT IN TEREST-FREE FUNDS TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN THE SECURITIES. HE PLACED REL IANCE ON THE ITA NO.1667/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO.1932/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) MAMATA MACHINERY PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT (OSD)-I ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - JUDGEMENT(S) OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT R ENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO.LT D. REPORTED AT (2014) 42 TAXMANN.COM 270 (GUJ.) AND OF CIT VS. AMOD STAMP ING (P) LTD. REPORTED AT (2014) 45 TAXMANN.COM 427 (GUJ.). 3.2. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER APPEAL, I.E. AY 2008-09, THEREFORE THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT RULE 8D IS APP LICABLE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS EARN ED DIVIDEND INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.59,36,503/-. FOR EARNING THIS DIV IDEND INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.2,20,01,000/- (R S.1,37,500/- + RS.2,16,08,500/- AND RS.2,55,000/-). THE CONTENTIO N OF ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED OUT OF INTEREST-FREE FUND S AND THE DETAILS SUBMITTED A CHART AT PAGE NO.6 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. ANOTHER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE BORROWED CAPITAL WAS UTILI ZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND NO BORROWED FUND WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENTS FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED TAX- FREE INCOME. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN P ARAS-6.5 TO 6.7 OF HIS ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ITA NO.1667/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO.1932/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) MAMATA MACHINERY PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT (OSD)-I ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - 6.5. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.A.R HAS CONSIDERABLE SUBSTANCE. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.A.R REGARDING EXCLUDING THE INVE STMENT IN FOREIGN SHARES BECAUSE THOSE DOES NOT GENERATE EXEMPT INCOM E IS CORRECT AND THEREFORE IT IS ACCEPTED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELIBE RATION. THIS FACT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O ALSO, BUT THERE IS SOME MI SMATCH IN THE FIGURES OF CALCULATION OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF FOREIGN C OMPANIES IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. REGARDING THE INTEREST ON EXHIBITION LOAN AND PACKI NG CREDIT, ETC. THE LD.A.R COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE WITH COGENT EVIDEN CE WHETHER THOSE LOANS ARE EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR THOSE SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND THERE IS NO INTERMIXING OF FUNDS WHICH WERE USED FO R ACQUISITION OF TAX FREE SECURITIES AND THEREFORE THIS ARGUMENT OF LD.A.R IS NOT ACCEPTED. 6.6. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14 A IS RECALCULATED AS UNDER:- 1. INTEREST : 88,56,044 X 3,82,57,000 = 15,23,3 30 ---------------------------------- 22,24,11,253 2. ADM. EXPENSES 0.5% OF 3,82,57000 = 1,91,285 6.7. AS SUCH ADDITION OF RS.17,14,615/- IS CONFIRME D. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.9,72,202/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEA L IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4.1. AS PER RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES, 1962, THE EXPE NDITURE SHOULD BE RELATED TO THE EXEMPT INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PA RT OF THE TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THE AO SHOULD HAVE VERIFIED WH ETHER THE EXPENDITURE WHICH HE PROPOSED TO DISALLOW RELATED T O THE EXEMPT INCOME OR NOT. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSEES CONTEN TION QUA THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS THAT IT HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST-FREE FUNDS AND THE INVESTMENT ITA NO.1667/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO.1932/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) MAMATA MACHINERY PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT (OSD)-I ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF SUCH FUNDS. THE FACT THAT TH E EXPENDITURE IS NOT RELATED TO THE EXEMPT INCOME AND THE INVESTMENT WHE REFROM EXEMPT INCOME IS EARNED IS MADE OUT OF INTEREST-FREE FUND NEEDS VERIFICATION. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFYING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTEREST EXPEND ITURE IS NOT RELATED TO EXEMPT INCOME AND ALSO INVESTMENT OUT OF WHICH EXEM PT INCOME IS EARNED WAS MADE OUT OF INTEREST-FREE FUND. IN CASE , THE AO FINDS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT, HE WOULD DEL ETE THE ADDITION. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1667/ AHD/2011 FOR AY 2008-09 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1 932/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2008-09, WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,72,202/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISAL LOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,28,175/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXCES S DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NO EVIDE NCES REGARDING THE DELIVERY OF VEHICLE WAS SUBMITTED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. ITA NO.1667/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO.1932/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) MAMATA MACHINERY PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT (OSD)-I ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - 4. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE REST ORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 6.1. FIRST GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST TH E DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.9,72,202/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/ S.14A OF THE ACT. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE ADVANCED THEIR ARGUMENTS AS W ERE MADE IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL(SUPRA). SINCE WE HAVE RESTORED THE ISSUE IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1667/AHD/2011(SUPRA) BACK TO THE F ILE OF AO FOR DECISION AFRESH, THIS ISSUE, RAISED IN THE REVENUE S APPEAL, IS ALSO RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECISION AFRESH WITH THE SAME DIRECTION. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES A PPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. SECOND GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.3,28,175/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLE. THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST REQUIREMENT FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSET HAS BEEN USED FOR BUSINE SS PURPOSES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY E VIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE VEHICLES WERE PUT TO USE FO R BUSINESS PURPOSES. HE SUBMITTED THAT MERELY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHAS ED VEHICLE ON 29/03/2008 AND 31/03/2008 DOES NOT SERVE THE PURPOS E FOR PROVING THAT ITA NO.1667/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO.1932/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) MAMATA MACHINERY PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT (OSD)-I ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - THE DELIVERY OF SUCH VEHICLES WERE TAKEN ON THE AFO RESAID DATES AND ON THE SAME DATES THE VEHICLES WERE PUT TO USE FOR BUSINES S PURPOSES. 7.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S PLACED ON RECORD INVOICES OF VEHICLES AND ALSO EVIDENCES OF REGISTRA TION OF THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWAR DS PAGE NOS.28 TO 44 AND ALSO CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION WHICH WAS PLAC ED AT PAGE NO.78 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AR GUED AT LENGTH TO BUTTRESS HIS CONTENTION THAT THE EVIDENCES SO FURNI SHED ARE SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE VEHICLES WERE PUT TO USE FOR BUSINES S PURPOSES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH COPY OF THE DELIVERY CHALLAN RECEIVED FROM THE DEALER OF THE VEHICLES FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE VEHICLES. WE FIND FORCE INTO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.SR.DR THAT FURN ISHING OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY WOULD NOT BE A SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE VEHICLES WERE PUT TO USE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE DELIVERY CHALLAN ISSUED BY THE DEALER OF THE VEHICLES IN QUESTION. HOWEVER, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED ITA NO.1667/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO.1932/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) MAMATA MACHINERY PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT (OSD)-I ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 10 - ITS INABILITY TO FURNISH THE DELIVERY CHALLAN. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ASSESSEE-C OMPANY HAS PURCHASED VEHICLES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE D ELIVERY OF SUCH VEHICLES HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN AND SUCH VEHICLES WERE PUT TO USE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. IT WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT THAT THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE FROM THE STATE TRANSPO RT AUTHORITY TO PROVE THAT THE VEHICLES HAVE BEEN PUT TO USE FOR BUSINESS PURP OSES. FOR CLAIMING DEPRECIATION, ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE THAT THE VEHI CLES SO PURCHASED HAVE BEEN PUT TO BUSINESS AS IN THE CASE IN HAND DELIVE RY OF VEHICLES TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PROVED, HOWEVER REGISTRATION OF VEH ICLES IS PROVED. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FURNISHED OTHER EVIDENCES FOR PROVING THAT IN FACT VEHICLES WERE PUT TO USE. THE REFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS HEREBY SET ASIDE. THE ISSUE OF ALLOWA BILITY OF DEPRECIATION IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECISION AFRESH. NE EDLESS TO SAY THAT THE AO WOULD GIVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSE E FOR PROVING THAT THE VEHICLES WERE PUT TO USE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. T HUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. 9. GROUND NOS.3 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH REQ UIRE NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. ITA NO.1667/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO.1932/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) MAMATA MACHINERY PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT (OSD)-I ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 11 - 10. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, CROSS-APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE BOTH ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON WEDNESDAY, THE 13 TH DAY OF MAY, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 13/ 05 /2015 1)..,&.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%$&' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. # / THE APPELLANT 2. $% # / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 234 5 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-VIII, AHMEDABAD 5. 6&7$34 , )34- , 2 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 79:;' / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, %6$ //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 27.4.15 (DICTATION-PAD 19+ PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..11.5.15 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.13.5.15 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 13.5.15 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER