DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1943/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7078 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Additional evidence; Onus to prove
• Section: 142(1); 144; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1943 /DEL/ 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1), ROOM NO. 407, 4 TH FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI VS. M/S. LIFESTYLE TEXWORKS PVT. LTD., APARTMENT 530, TOWER III, MOUNT KAILASH, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI GIR/PAN : AAACL7069F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. AMIT JAIN, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 16.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.06.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST O RDER DATED 21/02/2011 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) - VII, NEW DELHI RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS; 01. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS & CONTRARY TO FACTS & LAW. 02. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.52,29,408/ - MADE U/S 68 O F THE ACT, BEING THE UNCONFIRMED UNSECURED LOAN. 2.1 THE LD. CIT (A) HAS IGNORED THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE AO AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 03. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,62,503/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE. 3.1. THE LD. CIT (A) IGNORED THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE AO AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE REQUIRED EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. 2 ITA NO. 1943/DEL/2011 AY: 2006 - 07 04. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION TO RS. 35,775/ - AS AGAINST RS.3,76,148/ - MADE BY THE AO. 4.1. THE LD. CIT (A) IGNORED THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE AO AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE REQUIRED EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. 05. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, OR TO AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. 2. T HE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 04/12/2006 DECLARING LO SS OF RS. 11,40, 402/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR S CRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT (IN SHORT THE ACT ) DATED 19/10/2007 WAS ISSUED, HOWEVER , NO COMPLIANCE OF THE SAME WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT A LONG - WITH QUESTIONNAIRE ON THREE OCCASIONS; HOWEVER, SAME WERE ALSO NOT COMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW - CAUSE LETTER PROVIDING FINAL OPPORTUNITY AT THE THREE KNOWN ADDRESS ES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, HOWEVER , THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE AND , TH EREFORE , THE ASSESSING O FFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 144 OF THE ACT AT ASSESSED INCOME OF RS. 1,08,28, 660/ - . ON APPEAL, THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) ALLOWED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVE D WITH THE RELIEF ALLOWED, THE R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 3. THE GROUND NO. 1 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON AT OUR END. 4. IN GROUNDS NO. 2 AND 2.1 THE R EVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 52, 29, 408/ - FOR UNSECURED LOAN UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. SINCE NO CONFIRMATION AND DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ENTIRE FRESH UNSE CURED LOANS RECEIVED OF RS. 52,29, 408/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( AP PEALS), 3 ITA NO. 1943/DEL/2011 AY: 2006 - 07 WHO AFTER OBTAINING A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDING S OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX( APPEALS) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, T HE WRITTEN AND ORAL SUBMISSION(S) OF THE APPELLANT AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE, A.O. I FIND THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENT AGAINST THE EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE ISSUE AT HAND. IN OTHER WORDS, THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IS FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY BY THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT. AS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, REGARDING THE UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.52,29,408/ - , IT HAS ADDUCED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SU BSTANTIATE THE CLAIM DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDERS WAS ESTABLISHED. THE LENDERS HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT AND TO ADVANCE LOANS AND THOSE INVESTMENTS/LOANS HAVE BEEN DULY DISCLOSE D IN THEIR BALANCE SHEET. THESE DETAILS SHOW THAT THE LENDERS WERE PERSONS OF MEANS WITH THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO ADVANCE THE LOANS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO EVEN SUGGEST, AS POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE MONEY DIRECTLY OR IND IRECTLY EMANATED FROM THE ASSESSEE SO THAT IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE'S OWN MONEY WAS BROUGHT BACK IN THE GUISE OF LOANS. THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A CASE WHERE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSA CTIONS COULD BE CALLED IN QUESTION. SINCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT, IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IF ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT & THE APPELLANT OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE & SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT SATISFACTORY IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THEREFORE, WHAT HAS TO BE ENQUIRED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THE NATURE & SOURCE OF THE SUM OR DEPOSIT. IF THE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO NATURE & SOURCE IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY, ONL Y THEN THE AMOUNT SO CREDITED MAY BE TREATED AS INCOME. SECTION 68 HAS COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS WHICH HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE THREE CONDITIONS (I) IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR (II) CAPACITY OF SUCH CREDITOR TO ADVAN CE MONEY & (III) GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. [VIDE SHANKAR INDUSTRIES V. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (CAL.); C. KANT & COMPANY V. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 63 (CAL.); PRAKASH TEXTILE AGENCY VS. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (CAL.); ORIENTAL WIRE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 688; CIT VS. B.C. MOHANTY (1995) 212 ITR 199 (ORI.); JALAN TIMBERS VS. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (GAU.) & CIT VS. KORLAY TRADING COMPANY LTD. (1999) 232 ITR 820 IF ALL THE AFORESAID THREE CONDITIONS ARE PROVED THE BURDEN SHIFTS ON THE REVEN UE TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. [CIT VS. UNITED COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CO. (P) LTD. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (CAL.); M.A. UNNEERI KUTTY VS. CIT (1992)198 ITR 147 (KER.); CIT VS. PRECISION FINANCE P. LTD. (1994) 208 ITR 495(CAL.). IT HAS A LSO BEEN HELD BY THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ASKED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE OR THE ORIGIN OF ORIGIN. REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE DECISIONS IN S. HASTIMAL VS. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273(MAD); TOLA RAM DAGA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 4 ITA NO. 1943/DEL/2011 AY: 2006 - 07 (CAL.)]. (1966) 59 ITR 632 (GAU.); CIT VS. DAULAT RAM RAWATMULL (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC); SAROGI CREDIT CORPN. VS. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (PAT); CIT VS. ORISSA CORPN. (P) LTD.(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) & KISHAN CHAND CHELLARAM VS. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC). IN THIS REGARD, IT IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KISHAN CHAND CHELLARAM (SUPRA) HOLDING THAT THE BURDEN IS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW THAT THE MONEY BE LONGED TO THE ASSESSEE BY BRINGING PROPER EVIDENCE ON RECORD & THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT E EXPECTED TO PUT EVIDENCE TO HELP THE DEPARTMENT TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN THAT LAY UPON T. THE EVIDENCE, IF ANY, GATHERED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE USED AGAINST HIM WITHOUT CONFRONTING HIM WITH IT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD COME TO A FINDING THAT SUM CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE.UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE STATED ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DISCHARG ED ITS BURDEN OF PROOF U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.52,29,408/ - AND THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDI TION OF RS. RS.52,29,408/ - .AS A RESULT, GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 IS ALLOWED. 4.1 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED SR. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS CASTED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND NO CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS), AND ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CR EDIT OF RS. 52,29, 408/ - . 4.2 NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. 3 WE HA VE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE R EVENUE AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWN UNSECURED LOAN FROM THE FOLLOWING TWO PARTIES; 1. MILLENNIUM INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED RS. 24, 99, 408/ - 2. DEFFERED PAYMENT CREDIT FROM GLOBAL EMBTECH PT LTD, SINGAPORE RS. 27, 30, 000/ - . 4.4 THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FURNISHED WITH ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT( A ) WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY ADVERSE COMMENT IN RESPECT OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED IN SUPPORT OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT . THE RELEVANT PART OF THE REMAND REPORT HAS BEEN R EPRODUCED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF 5 ITA NO. 1943/DEL/2011 AY: 2006 - 07 INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HOWEVER , FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARITY , IT IS AGAIN REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MILLENNIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. IS A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY AND HAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIMS: (A) COPY OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF LIFE STYLE TEXWORKS PVT. LTD. WHICH SHOWS LOANS OF RS.24,99,408/ - IN THE NAME OF MILLENNIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. (B) COPY OF AUDITED BALANCE SHE ET OF MILLENNIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. WHICH SHOWS LOANS AND ADVANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.24,99,408/ - IN THE NAME OF LIFE TEXWORKS PVT. LTD. (C) COPY OF BALANCE CONFIRMATION CERTIFICATE FROM MILLENNIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUN T OF RS.27,30,000/ - IS A DEFERRED PAYMENT CREDIT ALLOWED BY GLOBAL EMB - TECH PTE LTD., SINGAPORE, WHICH SUPPLIED TAJIMA MULTI - HEAD EMBROIDERY MACHINE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO DEFER THE PAYMENT BY THE SUPPLIER AMOUNTING TO RS. 27,30,000/ - VIDE LETTER DAT ED 31/07/2006. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: - (A) COPY OF SALVE INVOICE OF GLOBAL EMB - TECH PTE LTD., SINGAPORE. (B) COPY OF LETTER OF GLOBAL EMB - TECH PTE LTD., SINGAPORE FOR DEFERMENT OF PAYMENT. (C) COPY OF BILL OF ENTRY. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4.5 THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) HAS DULY CONSIDERED THE COMMENT OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN HE HAS NOT OBJECTED ON THE EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OU R CONSIDERED OPINION, ONCE THE ASSESSING O FFICER HIMSELF IS SATISFIED ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE, UNLESS SOME MISTAKE OF FACTS OR OF LAW OR SOME MALAFIDE INTENTION IS ESTABLISHED, RAISING T HE SAME ISSUE IN FURTHER APPEAL IS NOT JUSTIFIED ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER , THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) HAS EXAMINED THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND CLEARLY HELD THAT IDENTITY OF THE LENDERS WAS ESTABLI SHED AND THE LENDERS HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT OR ADVANCE THE LOAN AND THOSE LOANS HAVE BEE N DULY DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE LENDERS. AS ALL THE THREE LIMBS OF THE SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WERE DULY PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ONUS OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISCHARGE D AND THE BURDEN 6 ITA NO. 1943/DEL/2011 AY: 2006 - 07 SHIFTS TO THE R EVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. IN OUR VIEW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING S OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS NO. 2 AND 2.1 OF THE R EVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN GROUNDS NO. 3 AND 3.1, THE R EVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 12,62,5 03/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE. 5.1 THE F ACTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE C LAIMED TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 1,26,25, 038/ - , HOWEVER , IN VIEW OF NON - COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES COULD NOT BE VERIFIED FOR WANT OF SUPPORT ING BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND , THEREFORE , HE DISALL OWED 10% OF SUCH EXPENSES ON AD - HOC BASIS WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS. 12,62, 503/ - . 5.2 BEFORE , LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT RATIO OF THE EXPENSES TO THE TURNOVER FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 WAS 85.45% WHEREAS THE RATIO FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS 76.29% AND THUS TRADING RESULT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE LAST YEAR, AND THEREFORE , NO ADDITION WAS WARRANTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER , IN TH E REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT , THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF T HE ACT AND NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES AND RESULT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE BETTER THAN LAST YEAR AND , THEREFORE , NO DISALLOWANCE WAS JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S WERE DULY AUDITED UNDER THE COMPANIES 7 ITA NO. 1943/DEL/2011 AY: 2006 - 07 ACT AS WELL AS UNDER THE INCOME T AX ACT AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE AVAILABLE FOR VERIFICATION. 5.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT EVEN IN THE REMAND PRECEDING ALSO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SAME WERE AVAILABLE FOR VERIFICATION. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, WE FEEL APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6. IN GROUNDS NO. 4 AND 4.1, THE R EVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE RESTRIC TING OF DEPRECIATION TO RS. 35, 775/ - AS AGAINST RS. 3,76, 148/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.1 BEFORE US, THE LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER . 6.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. WE FIND THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DULY VERIFIED THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS AND PUT TO USE AND NO ADVERSE COMMENTS WERE MADE IN RE SPECT OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 3,41, 3 73/ - AGAIN ST WHICH, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. IN OUR OPINION, ONCE THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS ALREADY SATISFIED HIMSELF ABOUT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATIO N AND BASED ON HIS REPORT, THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, IT IS NOT CORRECT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FILE FURTHER APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FIND INGS OF TH E L D. 8 ITA NO. 1943/DEL/2011 AY: 2006 - 07 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED PARTLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JUNE , 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 TH JUNE , 2016 . LAPTOP / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI