Aster Silicates P. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 2061/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9869 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N P PATEL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2061/AHD/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-2008 ASTER SILICATES PVT LTD, C/O. SHRI VINIT MOONDRA, CA, 201, SARAP, OPP. NAVJIVAN PRESS, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD - 380014 PAN : AABCA 6474 E VS ITO, WARD 1 (4), AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI N.P. PATEL, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 29/11/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/11/2016 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-III, AHMEDABAD DATED 23.04.2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE SOLE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS U NDER:- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY CONFIRMING DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.30,03,203/- OUT OF DEPRECIATION ON BIO GAS PLANT MADE BY THE AO, INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS READY TO USE ON DATE OF PUR CHASE, AND ONLY COMMISSIONED SUBSEQUENTLY. 3. IN THIS CASE, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A BIO GAS PLANT AND, ON ENQUIRY, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE BIO GAS PLANT WAS PUT TO USE ON 27.02.2007, I.E. FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 1 80 DAYS. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF NEW ASSETS VIDE NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 03.09.2009. IN RESPON SE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE COPY OF ACCOUNT WHICH SHOWS THE TOTAL COST OF THE BIO GAS PLANT AS RS.75,08,008/-. IT WAS ALSO SHOWED THE DATE OF PURCHASE AS SMC-ITA NO 2061/AHD/2013 ASTER SILICATES PVT LTD VS. ITO AY : 2007-2008 2 01.07.2006. HOWEVER, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSE E DID NOT SUBMIT ANY BILLS IN SUPPORT OF THE VALUE OF BIO GAS PLANT. HO WEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A CERTIFICATE OF COMMISSIONING ISSUED BY T R ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ENGINEERS, WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE PLANT WAS SUPPLIED BY VIKAS ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES (BILL NO.20 DATED 20.0 6.2006) AND ALSO THAT THE GAS PLANT WAS COMMISSIONED ON 27.02.2007 AND THAT T HE PLANT WAS FULLY CAPABLE OF RUNNING ON BIO-MASS AND COAL. AFTER EXA MINING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXCESS DEPRECATION OF RS.30,03,203/- AND HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE SAME. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 8. FACTS OF THE CASE AND ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLA NT HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT TH E BIO GAS PLANT WAS COMMISSIONED ON 27.02.2007. BIO GAS PLANT IS NOT A SINGLE MACHINE LIKE A FAN OR REFRIGERATOR THAT CAN BE PUT TO USE ONLY BY SWIT CHING ON THE SUPPLY. THE BIO GAS PLANT CONSISTS OF VARIOUS COMPONENTS WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE ASSEMBLED TOGETHER AND THEN TRAIL RUN IS PERFORMED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ENTIRE PLANT IS FUNCTIONING SATISFACTORILY. ONLY A FTER COMPLETION OF THESE ACTIVITIES THE PLANT CAN BE COMMISSIONED. IN THIS CASE, THE PLANT WAS COMMISSIONED ON 27.02.2007. THEREFORE, ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ASSET WAS READY FOR USE ON 01.07.2006 ITSELF IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. AO HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSET HAS BEEN USED BY APPELLANT FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 180 DAYS DURING THE YEAR. THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIA TION OF RS.30,03,203/- IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE DISALLOWANCE IS CONFIRMED. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS THUS DISMI SSED. 5. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), T HE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR. NONE APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A PAPER-BOOK ASKING FOR DISPOSING OF THE SMC-ITA NO 2061/AHD/2013 ASTER SILICATES PVT LTD VS. ITO AY : 2007-2008 3 APPEAL BY CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, ASSESSEE HAS BASICALLY REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS A S WERE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REFERRED TO SOME CASE LAWS. AFTER HEARI NG THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORD AND GOING THROUGH THE WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS, I FIND THAT NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT THE GAS PLANT PURCHASED ON 01.07.2006 WA S READY FOR USE FROM THAT DATE ONLY. EXCEPT THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CO NSULTANT-T R ASSOCIATES, NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED. IN ITS CERT IFICATE, THE CONSULTANT HAS MENTIONED ABOUT TRIAL RUNS CONDUCTED; HOWEVER, NO E VIDENCE IN THIS REGARD IS ON RECORD. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN ABSENC E OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THAT THE GAS-PLANT PURCHASED ON 01.07.2006 , WHICH WAS COMMISSIONED ON 27.02.2007, HAS BEEN ACTUALLY READY FOR USE ON 01.07.2006, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCUR RENT FINDING OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SHAMIM YAHYA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/11/2016 *BIJU T., SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD