PRAMUKH DEVELOPEMNT CORPORATION, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 12(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2571/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2668 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S BIST
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI . . , !' , # , $ BEFORE S/SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .T.A. NO.2571/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) M/S. PRAMUKH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CITIMALL, NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI-400053 / VS. ACIT 12(3), MUMBAI. % ./ & ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAEFP6092M ( %' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ()%' / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI . PRAKASH JOTWANI DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI. B.S.BIST * + / DATE OF HEARING: 08/10.2015 ,-. + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.11.2015 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.2571/MUM/2014 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2009-10 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06 .02.2014 OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-23, MUMBAI [HE REINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LEARNED CIT(A)] PASSED IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-23 /ACIT 12(3)/IT- 391/2011-12. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1) (A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EX PENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.L, 16,20,233/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON EMPLOYEES (85% OF RS. 1,36,7 0,862/-) AND APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ABOVE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF MANAGING A MALL WHERE LOT OF COST HAS TO BE INCURRED FOR MAINTENANCE, SECURITY A ND MANAGEMENT STAFF OF THE BUILDING. THIS VERY COST ACCOUNTS TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE EMPLOYEE COST. ITA NO.2571/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 2 (B) THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES HAVE RENDERED SERVICES TO THE O THER CONCERNS IN THE PAST AND IN THE PRESENT YEAR; NO SERVICES HAVE BEEN RENDERED TO THE SISTER CONCERNS AND WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE SISTER CONCERNS, THUS ESTABLISHING THE GENUI NENESS OF THE CLAIM. (C) THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON EMPLOYEES FOR EARLIER YEARS WERE ALSO S UBMITTED TO THE AO AND THERE IS NO MAJOR INCREASE IN THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE INCURRED ON REGU LAR BASIS & FURTHER, IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS THE SAME ARE ALLOWED BY THE AO WHILE COMPLETI NG THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). 2) A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE BEING 50% OF D EPRECIATION CLAIMED ON MOTOR CARS OF RS. 7,99,788/- (I.E. 50% OF RS.15,99,576/-) AND VEHICLE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,51,693/- (I.E. 50% OF RS. 3,03,386/-) ON 11 CARS OUT OF TOTAL OF 1 2 CARS. (B) THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONS IDERING THAT THERE ARE MANY PARTNERS AND THE CARS ARE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND NOT FOR PERSONAL PURPOSE AND SO THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FULL. CARS ARE USED ONLY FOR THE PRIMARY ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LI MITATION OF 9 DAYS. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 28.04.2014 MENTIONING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ERRONEOUSLY MENTIONED THE DATE OF RECE IPT OF CIT(A) ORDER AS 06.02.2014 INSTEAD OF 19.03.2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL IN THE TRIBUNAL ON 16.04.2014 I.E. WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LI MITATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IN THE TRIBUNAL WAS FOR BONA-FIDE REASONS, THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED EXPENSES UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,36,70,862/-. THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS HAS BEEN ELABORATED IN PARA 5.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH INCLUDES EXPENSE IN THE NATURE OF SALARY, HOU SE RENT ALLOWANCES, BONUS, GRATUITY, STAFF WELFARE ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ONLY INCOME FROM RENT, CAR PARKING AND SM ALL INTEREST INCOMES AND WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IT WAS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO INCUR EXPENSES OF ITS EMPLOYEES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,36,7 0,862/- JUST FOR EARNING INCOME FROM RENT AND CAR PARKING. THE ASSESSING OF FICER ISSUED THE NOTICE TO ITA NO.2571/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 3 THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE ASS ESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 14.12.2011 EXPLAINED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 006-07 TO 2008-09 THERE WAS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY ASSESSEE ON I TS EMPLOYEES FORM ANIK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND AJMERA HOUSING CORPORAT ION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT SOME OF ITS EMPLOYEES WERE OFFERIN G SERVICES TO OTHER COMPANIES OF THE GROUP FROM WHOM REIMBURSEMENT HAD BEEN TAKEN IN THOSE YEARS. THERE WAS NO REIMBURSEMENT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N, BUT THERE WAS A HUGE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE ON THE EMPLOYEES. THE ASSESSE E ALSO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS FROM THE COMPANIES TERMINATING THE CONTRACT FOR ARR ANGEMENT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF THE SALARY EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAM INED THESE TWO DOCUMENTS AND NOTED AS FOLLOWS:- (I) THEY ARE BOTH DATED SAME 01.01.2008. (II) THEY ARE BOTH SIGNED BY THE SAME PERSON. (III) THEY ARE BOTH TALKING OF A DISCUSSION HELD IN THE SAME DATE I.E. 28.12.2007 AND COME INTO EFFECT ON THE SAME DATE (IV) ONE BELONGS TO AJMERA REALTY INFRA INDIA LTD. AND THE OTHER BELONG TO AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION. SPECIAL ATTENTION MUST BE PAI D TO THE SPELLING OF THE WORD REALTY IN THE FIRST LETTER. NO LETTER HEAD OF A COMPANY WILL HAVE A SPELLING MISTAKE IN THE VERY BASIC SPELLINGS. (V) BOTH THE CONCERNS HAVE THE OFFICE AT THE SAME ADDRESS. (VI) THE ADDRESS OF AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION AS M ENTIONED IN THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT MENTIONED IN TH E LETTER. AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION IS A PARTNER IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM. (VII) BOTH HAVE THE SAME EMAIL ID : [e-mail] . 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID OBSERVATIONS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE FALSE AND FABRICA TED AND THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN WORKING FOR THE OTHER GROUP CONCE RNS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN DEBITING THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON THEM TO ITS OWN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENSES THAT ARE ALLOWABLE ARE ONLY THOSE WHICH ARE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE AND CAN BE ALLOWED AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE ON THE FOLLOWING G ROUNDS:- ITA NO.2571/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 4 (I) 'THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING ONLY RENTAL INCOME AND INCOME FROM CAR PARKING. IT IS NOT LOGICAL THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE INCURRING SUCH A HUGE E XPENSE JUST FOR EARNING THESE TWO TYPES OF INCOMES . (II) THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT SHOWING ANY WORK-IN-P ROGRESS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER AND DEVELOPER AND HAD THE ASSESSEE BEEN SHOWING SUCH EX PENSE ON ITS EMPLOYEES, IT COULD HAVE BEEN A LOGICAL BUSINESS EXPENSE. BUT SINCE THE RE IS NO PROJECT AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET, IT IS IMPROBABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE S HOULD BE INCURRING SUCH EXPENSES FOR EARNING RENTAL INCOME. (III) THE ASSESSEE'S LAST PROJECT WAS COMPLETED IN THE A. Y. 2003-04. SINCE THEN THERE IS ONLY RENTAL INCOME AND SOME SALES OF THE STOCK. (IV) THE ASSESSEE IS INCURRING EXPENSES ON ITS EMPL OYEES FOR RENDERING SERVICE TO SOME OTHER CONCERN. THE OTHER CONCERN EITHER SHOULD HAVE REIMB URSED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE OR ELSE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE RENDERED THE SERV ICES OF ITS EMPLOYEES TO THE OTHER CONCERNS. (V) THE USE OF SERVICES OF ITS EMPLOYEES FOR THE OT HER CONCERNS AND THEN DEBITING THE SAME TO ITS P&L MEANS THAT THE EXPENSES ARE ACTUALLY INCURR ED BY SOMEONE ELSE, BUT BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE. (VI) THUS THESE ARE NOT VALID BUSINESS EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE.' THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED FROM FIGURES OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEES REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES ETC. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN INCURRIN G APPROXIMATELY 15% OF THE EMPLOYEE EXPENSES FOR ITS OWN BUSINESS AND ALSO INCURRED BALANCE 85% OF THE EXPENSES FOR OTHER BUSINESS CONCERNS. THEREFOR E, ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE 85% FOR THE BUSINESS EXPENSES ON ITS EMPLOYEE BASED UPON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,16,20,233/-. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIALS FILED. IN THE SAME MANNER AS CONSIDER RE PRESENTATIVE THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY RE-PRODUCED BELOW:- BESIDES RENT OF RS. 1,06,36,068/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE IS HAVING INCOME FROM CAR PARKING CHARGES, MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AND INTEREST AS UNDER. CAR PARKING FEES 65,61,940 MISC. INCOME 4,19,000 INTEREST INCOME 60,123 TOTAL GROSS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS COMES TO RS.70,41,063/- AS PARKING CHARGES AND MISC. INCOME. HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS E ARNED A BUSINESS INCOME DURING ITA NO.2571/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 5 THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS INCOME HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED AS BUSINESS INCOME SINCE LAST MANY YEARS. COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2006-07,2007-08 AND 2008-09 IS ENCLOSED. BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEA R ENDED 31.03.2008 IS ALSO ENCLOSED. YOUR APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED DETAILED WORKING OF PA YMENTS MADE TO EMPLOYEES ON A MONTHLY EMPLOYEE WISE BASIS. ALL THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH BANK. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT EXPENSES ARE INCURRED AND AR E GENUINE EXPENSES. ALSO ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED DETAILS OF EXPENSES IS THAT IN THE EA RLIER WITH VARIOUS GROUP CONCERNS. HOWEVER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE CON TRACTS WERE TERMINATED. THE LETTERS IN RESPECT OF TERMINATION OF ARRANGEMENTS O F REIMBURSEMENT ARE SUBMITTED. AO TREATED THESE TWO LETTERS AS BOGUS ON THE VARIOU S GROUNDS AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON PAGE NO. 4. HOWEVER HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE GROUP COMPANIES OF AJMERA GROUP OF BUILD ERS WHO HAVE A COMMON CORPORATE OFFICE AT ONE PLACE. THERE WILL BE RESPO NSIBLE PERSON TACKLING THE DIFFERENT ISSUE AND DIVISION OF WORK BY INDIVIDUAL PERSON. I SSUE RAISED BY AO ON PAGE NO. 4 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVE NO RELEVANCE ON THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THESE LETTER ARE FAKE AND BOGUS BECAUSE MORE S O WHEN BOTH THESE CONCERNS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND HAVE NOT CLAIMED THESE EXPENSES . ALL THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUP CONCERNS ARE IN THE HIGHER BRACKET OF TAXES AND HEN CE THERE IS NO TAX AVOIDANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. JUST THE FACT THAT EXPEN SES HAVE NOT BEEN REIMBURSED DURING THE YEAR CANNOT BE THE REASON TO DISALLOW 85% OF EX PENSES. ALL THE EMPLOYEES ARE OLD AND CANNOT BE REMOVED EVEN IF THERE IS NO REIMBURSE MENT OF EXPENSES. ASSESSEE IS MAINTAIN A MALL AND PARKING SPACE WHERE IN VARIOUS ACTIVITY ARE BEING CARRIED ON. ALL THE EMPLOYEES ARE HAVING THEIR OW N DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. THEY ARE WORKING WITH THE ASSESSEE SINCE PAST MANY YEARS AND CANNOT BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. ONE CANNOT REMOVE THEIR EXISTING EMPL OYEES JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE NO IMMEDIATE PROJECTS IN HAND. EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSES SEE HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY SERVICES TO OTHER GROUP CONCERNS. NO WHERE IT IS PROVED THAT T HEY ARE WORKING FOR OTHER GROUP CONCERNS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND EXP LANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN VIDE LETTER DATED 29.12.2011 GIVING THE VARIOUS REASONS FOR NO SALES HAS TAKEN PLACE DURING THE YEAR. THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO WHILE DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES. THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON EMPLOYEES FOR EARLIER YEAR S ARE ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE AO. THE SAME ARE NORMAL AND THERE IS NO MAJOR INCREASE IN THE EXPENSES. THE SAME ARE INCURRED ON A REGULAR BASIS. HOWEVER IN EARLIER AS SESSMENT YEARS THE SAME ARE ALLOWED BY THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U /S. 143(3). IN NONE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS THE SAME HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY TH E AO. HENCE THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FULL. 6. HOWEVER ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR STRONG LY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND CONTENTED TO DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL. 7. WITH DUE REGARDS TO THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY TH E REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES, IT IS ONLY REQUIRED TO SEE THAT WHETHER TH E EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE UPON THE EMPLOYEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,36,7 0,862/- IS JUSTIFIABLE AND IS ALLOWABLE AS EXPENDITURE OR NOT. THE ASSESSEE IN I TS ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 ITA NO.2571/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 6 TO 2008-09 WAS CLAIMING THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE RENDERING THEIR SERVICES BY THE GROUP CONCERN. IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY OF THE CAR PAR KING FEES AND RECEIVED TO THE TUNE OF RS.65,61,940/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A HUGE EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,36,70,862/-. NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED T HE DOCUMENTS OF TERMINATION OF CONTRACT WITH THE CONCERNED COMPANIES AND TOOK T HE PLEA THAT THE EMPLOYEE COULD NOT BE REMOVE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAD I NCURRED THE HUGE EXPENDITURE OF SALARY ETC. PAID TO THEM. IT DOES NOT SEEMS JUS TIFIABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RETAINING THE EMPLOYEE JUST TO COLLECT THE CAR PARK ING FEES TO THE TUNE OF RS.65,61,940/- BY THE CLAIM OF HUGE EXPENDITURE BY ITS EMPLOYEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,36,70,862/-. THE ACTUAL CONTRACT TERMINATION CONDITIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE GROUP CONCERNS HAVE NOT BEEN PLACE D ON RECORD AND APPARENTLY IN THE EARLIER YEARS THE EMPLOYEES WERE DOING THEIR JOB WITH THE SISTER CONCERNS COMPANIES OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, AFTER THE TER MINATION OF THE CONTRACT WITH SISTER CONCERNS IT DOES NOT SEEM THAT THE SALARY ET C. IS JUSTIFIABLE TO CLAIMING THE EXPENDITURE UPON THEM TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,36,70,862 /-. IT ALSO CAME TO THE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE FAIL TO CONNECT THE EXPEND ITURE UPON ITS EMPLOYEES WITH HIS CURRENT BUSINESS. NO DOUBT AO RECORDED THE REA SONS ABOUT THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER IN THE PROFESSION OF BUILDER A ND DEVELOPER AND DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR NO WORK OF ANY KIND IS EXE CUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION TO RETAIN THE EMPLOYEES BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. MOREOVER, IT IS SIMPLE SENSE OF UNDER STANDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE CAN BE CLAIMED ONLY AGAINST THE BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 85% WAS DECLINED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND OF EARLIER CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR OF 2006-07 TO 2008-09. IN VIEW OF THE SAID CI RCUMSTANCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 8. GROUND NO. 2:- THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE LTD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF A.O . IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM ITA NO.2571/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 7 OF DEPRECIATION OF THE CARS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 7, 99,788/- I.E. 50% OF RS.15,99,576/- AND VEHICLE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS . 1,51,693/- I.E. 50% OF RS. 3,03,386/- ON 11 CARS OUT OF TOTAL 12 CARS. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS ONLY RAISE RENTAL INCOME. THERE WAS NO DOUBT, IN THE PROVISIONS OF BILL IN TH E RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS NO WORK OF ANY KIND WAS BEING EXECUTED BY HIM. THE AS SESSEE CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION ON 12 CARS AND SOME CARS WERE REGISTER ED IN GUJARAT. THE AO DECLINED THE DEPRECIATION OF 11 CARS WHICH WERE NOT USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. NO DOUBT THE REGISTRATION OF A CAR IN OT HER STATE OF INDIA BUT IT LINKED WITH THE BUSINESS IS NECESSITY TO CLAIM THE DEPRECI ATION. ANY HOW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE 50% DEPRECIATION TO THE EXTE NT AND GIVEN RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. NO OTHER DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED BEFO RE US TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM AND NO NEW FACTS CAME ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RECORD TO THE DISALL OWANCE OF THE DEPRECIATION UPON THE CARS BY THE CIT(A) SEEMS TO BE JUSTIFIABLE . THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY PASSED THE ORDER IN QU ESTION WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED ANY INTERFERENCE WITH AT THIS STAGE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HER EBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 4 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- (R.C.SHARMA) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; /* DATED : 4 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 MP MP MP MP ITA NO.2571/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %' / THE APPELLANT 2. ()%' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 0 / CIT 5. 123 (# #* , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 34 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, )1 (# //TRUE COPY// / !' (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) '# $ , / ITAT, MUMBAI