IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 281/PNJ/2015 : (A.Y 2008 - 09) MAHESH SHRISHAILA KALYANI PROP : MURIGEPPA AGRO INDUSTRIES RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI PAN : AHPPK2343C (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : K.M. MAHESH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 14/09/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/09/2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BELAGAVI IN ITA NO. 643/BGM/2010 - 11 DT. 1.4.2015 FOR THE A.Y 2008 - 09. SHRI K.M. MAHESH, LD. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT THE AO HAD DISALLOWED 20% OUT OF THE LABOUR CHARGES, 50% OUT OF MELA EXPEN SES, RS. 4 LACS OUT OF THE SUPERVISION CHARGES AND RS. 2 LACS OUT OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENDITURE AND HAD ALSO DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON BUILDINGS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DEALER OF TRACTORS AND MANUFACTURER OF TRACTOR TRAILERS. IT W AS THE SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO DISALLOW THE EXPENDITURE ON AD HOC 20% AND IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRME D. 2 ITA NO. 281/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2008 - 09) 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION, IT IS NOTICED FROM THE GROUND RAISED, AS ALSO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE BUILDING ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION IS, IN FACT, TEMPORARY SHEDS WHERE MANUFACTURING OF THE TRACTOR TRAILERS ARE UNDERTAKEN. THESE ARE, IN FACT, NOT PERMANENT STRUCTURES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO WRITE OFF THE WHOLE AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF THE TEMPORARY SHED AS THEY ARE NOT PERMANENT STRUCTURES. THIS WO ULD BE MORE IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT QUESTIO NED THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE. THE AO HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE WHICH IS EXCESSIVE OR WHICH IS UN - VOUCHED. THE ONLY ALLEGATION IS THAT THEY ARE SELF - MADE VOUCHERS. IN VIEW OF T HE FACT THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED AND THE FACT THAT THERE ARE VOUCHERS FOR THE SAME , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AD HOC DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITURE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/09/2015. S D / - (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - ( GEORGE MATHAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 14/09/ 201 5 *SSL* 3 ITA NO. 281/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2008 - 09) COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER , 4 ITA NO. 281/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2008 - 09) DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ORDER ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 14/09/2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 1 5 /09/2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 1 5 /09/2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 1 5 /09/2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 1 5 /09/2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14/09/2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 5 /09/2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER