M/s. Rana Steels India Ltd., Muzaffarnagar V. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 5189/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3721 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KISHORE
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH F DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM AND SHRI K. D. RAN JAN, AM I. T. APPEAL NO. 5189 (DEL) OF 2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. M/S. RANA STEELS INDIA LTD., ASSTT. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MEERUT ROAD, VS. W A R D : 1, DISTT. MUZAFFAR NAGAR. M U Z A F F A R N A G A R. PAN/GIR NO. AAB CK 3122 F. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANKIT GUPTA, ADV.; DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI B. KISHORE, SR. D. R.; O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07 ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), MUZAFFAR NAGAR. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.56,885/- ON THE ACCOUNT OF THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES; 2. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS, IN VIEW OF THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE AD DITION OF RS.2,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DISALLOWING THE INTERES T UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) IN HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3); 2 I. T. APPEAL NO. 5189 (DEL) OF 2010 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AN D IN LAW BY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION / DISALLOWANCE OF 15 PER CENT I.E. RS.28,0 78/- OUT OF LOADING AND UNLOADING EXPENSES; 4. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AN D IN LAW IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE RS.57,918/- UNDER SECTION 40-A(3) ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT EXPENSES; 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON MISC. FI XED ASSETS AND IN RESTRICTING THE CLAIM TO 10 PER CENT AS AGAINST ALLOWABLE DEPRE CIATION OF 15 PER CENT; 6. THE ADDITION / DISALLOWANCE MADE ARE UN JUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. THE ADDITION / DISALLOWANCE HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND IN AD-HOC MANNER; 7. THAT THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN, EVIDENCE P RODUCED AND MATERIAL PLACED AND MADE AVAILABLE ON RECORD HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED AND JUDICIALLY INTERPRETED AND THE SAME DO NOT JUSTIFY THE ADDITIO N MADE; 8. THAT THE ADDITION MADE IS BASED ON MERE SURMISES AND CONJUNCTURES AND THE SAME CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD; 9. THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO AP PRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ADEQUATELY DISCHARGED THE ONUS BY LEADING THE R EQUISITE EVIDENCE AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN WRONGLY AND ILLEGALLY SUSTAIN ED. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 36(1)(I II) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATED IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE ADVANCES TO SOME OF THE PARTIES I.E. SHRI QAMRU ZAMA, M/S. SHAH TIMES, SHRI SHAH ZAMA RANA AND SHRI SHAH NAWAJ RANA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY INTEREST SHOULD N OT BE DISALLOWED. IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ADVANCES HAVE BEEN PAID TO THEM IN THE INTERES T OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. ON PERUSAL OF ACCOUNTS OF SHRI SHAH ZAMA RANA REVEALED THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS HAVING DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.15,80,000/- AS ON 1/04/2005 AND FURTHER ADVANCE OF RS. 1,00,000/- AND RS.2,50,000/- WERE MADE DURING THE YEAR RESULTING IN DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.19,30,000/- ON THE LAST DAY OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR. IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHAH TIMES TH ERE WAS DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.3,96,900/- AS ON 1/04/2005, WHICH INCREASED TO RS.4,28,700/- ON 31 ST MARCH, 2006. TERM LOAN INSTALLMENT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF M/S. SHAH TIMES D URING THE YEAR. SHRI QAMARZAMA RANA MADE WITHDRAWALS OF RS.15,00,000/- ON 4/07/2005 AND FINA L DEBIT BALANCE IN HIS ACCOUNT WAS 3 I. T. APPEAL NO. 5189 (DEL) OF 2010 RS.8,00,967/- AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2006. THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8 PER CENT TO VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DIRECTORS. IN VIE W OF THESE FACTS THE AO NOTED THAT ON THE ONE HAND THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING INTEREST TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DIRECTORS WHEREAS NO INTEREST HAD BEEN CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADVANCES/LO ANS MADE BY THE COMPANY. SINCE NO CONVINCING REPLY WAS RECEIVED, THE AO HELD THAT INT EREST LIABILITY WAS NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE AO DISA LLOWED INTEREST OF RS.2.5 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. 4. ON APPEAL IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WHILE MAK ING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,50,000/- HAD IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNSECURED LO ANS TOTALING TO RS.3,91,17,605.95, OUT OF WHICH INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOANS WAS AT RS.2,80,81,876/ -. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOANS AT RS.1,10,35,729/-. THE INTEREST PAID AT RS.31,59,397/- WAS FULLY COVERED FROM INTEREST FREE SECURED LOANS. THE INTEREST EXPENSES PAID WERE FULLY VERIFIABLE. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING RS.2,50,000/- UNDE R SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT NO BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE COMPANY WAS SERVED BY ADVANCING INTE REST FREE LOAN TO FOUR PARTIES. EVEN IF INTEREST FREE UNSECURED LOANS IN SIGNIFICANT QUANTI TY WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IT WAS A FACT THAT THE COMPANY WAS PAYING INTEREST TO FAMILY MEMB ERS OF THE DIRECTORS ON SOME OF THE UNSECURED LOANS. SUCH INTEREST BURDEN WOULD HAVE S UBSTANTIALLY REDUCED IF THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS ADVANCED TO THESE FOUR PERSONS WAS USED IN RETU RNING THE INTEREST BEARING LOANS THEREBY REDUCING THE LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSE E COMPANY RESORTED TO ADVANCING MONEY FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES TO THESE PERSONS AND, THEREFO RE, HE UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. BEFORE US THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST- FREE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS WER E ADVANCED TO THE RELATIVES OF THE DIRECTORS. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITY & POWER LTD. 313 ITR 340 (BOM.) WH EREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THERE WERE FUNDS AVAILABLE BOTH INTEREST FREE AND OVER-DRAFT A ND OR LOANS TAKEN, THEN PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE 4 I. T. APPEAL NO. 5189 (DEL) OF 2010 THAT INVESTMENTS WOULD BE OUT OF INTEREST FEE FUNDS GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE INTEREST OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHILE IN APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INTEREST FREE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH ADVANCES WERE MADE. THE LD. CIT (A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE HAD NOT EXAMI NED AS TO HOW THE ADVANCES WERE MADE OUT OF INTEREST FREE LOANS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO CO-RELATE THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS ON THE DATE OF ADVAN CING THE LOANS. NORMALLY, IN THE BUSINESS THE BORROWED FUNDS WHETHER INTEREST BEARING OR INTEREST FREE DO NOT REMAIN IN THE FORM OF CASH OR BANK BALANCES. THEY GET INVESTED IN THE VARIOUS AS SETS. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INTEREST FREE FUNDS OUT OF WH ICH PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE CANNOT BE BLINDLY ACCEPTED WITHOUT EXAMINING THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE TW O. SINCE NEITHER THE LD. CIT (A) NOR THE ASSESSEE HAD CO-RELATED THE ADVANCES MADE WITH THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS, IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. FURTHER THE PLEA OF INTERE ST FREE FUNDS WAS TAKEN FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE, WE FEEL IT PROPER TO S ET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WHETHER THE LOANS HAD BEEN ADVANCED OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. T HE AO WILL CONDUCT NECESSARY ENQUIRY AND DECIDE THE ISSUE. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO SUST AINING THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.28,078/- OUT OF LOADING AND UNLO ADING EXPENSES. THE AO WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE SELLING AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES NOTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE BRANCH OFFICES WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE I NCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,87,188/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOADING AND UNLOADING CHARGES. SOME OF THE EXPENSES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER BILLS/VOUCHERS. IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S OF THE BRANCH OFFICES, THE AO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/-. 5 I. T. APPEAL NO. 5189 (DEL) OF 2010 8. ON APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE EXPENSE S WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. THE AO MADE DISAL LOWANCE ON AD-HOC BASIS, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE LD. CIT (A), HOWEVER, OBSE RVED THAT THE PAYMENT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOADING AND UNLOADING CHARGES WERE IN CASH WHICH WE RE NOT SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. HOWEVER, HE NOTED THAT THE AO HAD DISALLOWED EXPENSES ON HIGHER SIDE. HE, THEREFORE, UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE AT THE RATE OF 15 PER CENT AMOUNTING T O RS.28,078/-. 9. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SIMILAR ARGUMENTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT ( A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO HAD DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT S OME OF THE EXPENSES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF BRANCH OFFICES WE RE NOT PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. THE LD. CIT (A) ON APPRECIATION OF FACTS HAD COME TO THE CO NCLUSION THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH IN RESPECT OF LOADING AND UNLOADING EXPENSES WERE NOT SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. BEFORE US THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) WAS UNREA SONABLE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FOR CLAIM OF THE E XPENSES, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. CIT (A) AT RS.28,078/- IS UPHELD. 11. THE NEXT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.57,918/- MADE UNDER SECTION 40-A(3) ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT EXPENSES. DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID FREIGHT CHA RGES IN CASH TO VARIOUS TRANSPORTERS. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENSES WERE FU LLY VERIFIABLE AS HAS BEEN PAID AGAINST THE PURCHASED BILLS OF RAW MATERIAL / CAPITAL GOODS AND WERE WELL SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND BILTEES OF TRANSPORT. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED ANY REC ORD / EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF FREIGHT CHARGES AND HAS MADE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF TH E EXPENSES EITHER BELOW RS.20,000/- OR JUST 6 I. T. APPEAL NO. 5189 (DEL) OF 2010 RS.20,000/- TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40-A(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE ENTRIES MADE COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AND IN SPITE OF ABOVE ENTRIES, CASH PAYMENTS MADE EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- ON A SINGLE DAY TO M/S. NEW DEEPAK TRANSPORT ROAD LINES ON VARIOUS DATES WAS FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40-A(3). THE AO DISALLOWED 20 PER CENT OF THE SAME AMOUNTING TO RS. 57,918/-. 12. ON APPEAL IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 40-A(3) WERE NOT APPLICABLE AS NO SINGLE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN CASH EXCEEDING RS.2 0,000/-. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE @ 20 PER CENT OF RS.2,89,590/- WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT TO TRUCK DRIVERS. THE A SSESSEE FILED PHOTO-COPIES OF THE GRS IN SUPPORT OF FREIGHT AMOUNT ALONG WITH PHOTO COPIES O F THE BILLS IN SUPPORT OF RAW MATERIAL AND COAL PURCHASED. SINCE THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOL LY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS NOT S USTAINABLE. THE LD. CIT (A) HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF FREIGHT PAYMENTS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE AO WAS J USTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED ANY RECORD / EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF FREI GHT CHARGES AND HAD MADE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF EXPENSES OF BELOW RS.20,000/- TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40-A(3) OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE DISA LLOWANCE. 13. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SIMILAR A RGUMENTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO HAD DISALLOWED EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT PA YMENT TO M/S. NEW DEEPAK TRANSPORT ROAD LINES HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- ON A SINGLE DAY. UNDER SECTION 40-A(3) OF THE ACT WHERE THE ASSESSEE INCURS ANY EXPENDITURE I N RESPECT OF WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE IN A SUM EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. RULE 6-DD SPECIFIES THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH DISALLOWANCE U NDER SECTION 40-A(3) CANNOT BE MADE. 7 I. T. APPEAL NO. 5189 (DEL) OF 2010 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T POINT OUT ANY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH PROVISIONS OF RULE 6-DD COULD BE INVOKED. TH E ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE PAYMEN TS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE LESS THAN RS.20,000/-. WHEREAS THE AO HAD SPECIFICALLY MENTI ONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- ON A SINGLE DAY TO M/S. NEW D EEPAK TRANSPORT ROAD LINES ON VARIOUS DATES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATE RIAL TO PROVE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40-A(3) OF THE ACT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE. 15. THE NEXT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO DIS ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON MISC. FIXED ASSETS AND RESTRICTING THE CLAIM TO THE EXTENT OF 1 0 PER CENT AS AGAINST 15 PER CENT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 15 PER CENT ON MISC. ASSETS WORTH RS.7,01,833/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE DEPRECIATION AT TH E RATE OF 10 PER CENT. 16. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT DEPRECIATION ON MISC. FIXED ASSETS HAD BEEN DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AT THE RATE OF 15 PER CENT. THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE THEREOF HAS BEEN CARRIED FORWARD FOR NEXT YEA R. THE LD. CIT (A) HOWEVER, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ELABORATED THE DETAILS OF ASSETS I NCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD MISC. FIXED ASSETS SO THAT DEPRECIATION COULD BE ALLOWED AT THE RATE SPEC IFIED AT APPENDIX 1 OF RULE 5 OF I. T. RULES. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) UPHELD THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST . 17. BEFORE US ALSO THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF ASSETS ON WHICH DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 15 PER CENT WAS CLAIMED . THE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE AS PER RATES PRESCRIBED IN APPENDIX 1 OF RULE 5 OF I. T. RULES. IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS OF MISC. FIXED ASSETS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WA S JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE ON DEPRECIATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFI RMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). 8 I. T. APPEAL NO. 5189 (DEL) OF 2010 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 10 TH JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- [ RAJPAL YADAV ] [ K. D. RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 10 TH JUNE, 2011. *MEHTA * COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT, 4. CIT (APPEALS), 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT.