Mr. Ravinder Sawhney, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5669/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4850 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; TDS
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5669/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 MR. RAVINDER SAWHNEY, PROP. SHRISHTHI CONSTRUCTIONS, 6/1, SARV PRIYA VIHAR, NEW DELHI. PAN AAAPS6791C (APPELLANT) VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 63(1), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. VINOD BINDAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SH. SURENDER PAL, SR. DR ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.09.2016 PASSED BY THE CIT(A )-20,NEW DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S. 143(3) FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. IN VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS C HALLENGED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS : (I). DISALLOWANCE OF WAGES RS.16,20,954/- (II). DISALLOWANCE OF PETTY CONTRACT PAYMENTS RS. 16,74,266/- (III). DISALLOWANCE OF HIRE CHARGES RS.15,59,3 74/- (IV). DISALLOWANCE OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES RS. 47,440/- (V). DISALLOWANCE OF VEHICLE RUNNING & DATE OF HEARING 22.07.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.10.2019 ITA NO. 5669/DEL/2016 2 MAINTENANCE EXPENSES RS. 54,724/- (VI). DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CARS R S.35,724/- ALL THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN MADE ON ADHOC AND ESTIMATE BASIS BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EN GAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION LIKE CONSTRUCTION OF FACTORIES A ND RESIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH COMPARATIVE GROSS PROFIT/NE T PROFIT CHART FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE AND HAD DULY BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER ON EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DETAILS, DID NO T DISTURB THE TRADING RESULT AND ACCEPTED THE TURNOVER AS WELL AS GP/NP RATIOS F OR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE VARIOU S DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES DEBITED UNDER VARIOUS HEADS. 4. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF WAGES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED EXPENSES OF RS. 25,18,911/- ON ACCOUNT OF WAGES WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 4.561% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND CONSULTANCY FEES, WHICH WAS AT RS.5,52,19,817/-. HE FOUND THAT THERE IS INCREASE IN THE EXPENSES AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEAR IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE TO TURNOVER AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PR ODUCE THE ENTIRE DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT, HAD PRODUCED WAGE REGISTER , MUSTER ROLL, SALARY SLIPS ETC. AND ALSO GAVE REASON FOR INCREASE IN THE WAGES COST ALONG WITH COMPLETE DETAILS OF WAGES AND CATENA OF OTHER EVIDENCES. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PROVIDE NT FUND ACT AND THE ASSESSEE IS PAYING PF AS PER PF RULES. THEREFORE, T HE GENUINENESS OF WAGES CANNOT BE DOUBTED. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERV ED THAT IN SOME OF THE ITA NO. 5669/DEL/2016 3 CASES, LABOURERS HAVE PUT THEIR THUMB IMPRESSION AN D THEREFORE, THEIR IDENTITY IS NOT ESTABLISHED AND SOME OF THE PAYMENTS WERE MA DE IN CASH. IN SOME CASES, ONLY INITIAL NAME OF THE PERSONS HAS BEEN ME NTIONED AND NEITHER ANY INFORMATION REGARDING EPF ACCOUNT NUMBERS IS MENTIO NED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL LABOURERS IN THE WAGES REGISTER AND MUSTER ROLL AND ACCORDINGLY, HE RESTRICTED THE WAGES TO RS.8,11,547/- AND THE DIFFERENCE OF RS .17,07,364/- WAS ADDED. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CRITERIA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE VIS A VI S INCREASE OF TURNOVER AND IF THAT CRITERIA IS ADOPTED, THE DISALLOWANCE SHOUL D BE RS.16,02,594/-. ACCORDINGLY, HE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.1 6,02,594 FROM RS.17,07,364/-. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES, WE FIND THAT FIRST OF ALL, THERE CANNOT BE ANY COMPARISON FROM THE LAS T YEAR SPECIFICALLY IN THE CASE OF CIVIL CONTRACTORS, BECAUSE IT DEPNDS UPON T HE NATURE OF CONTRACT WORK EXECUTED DUE TO ITS OWN SPECIFICATION, TYPE OF STRU CTURE, PLACE OF EXECUTION, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CONTRACTOR ETC. THEREFORE, THE GP RATIO OF EACH CONTRACT WOULD BE DIFFERENT AND CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH OTHE R CONTRACTS. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THE E ARLIER YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED OTHER HIGHER INCOMES AND IF THE SAID INCOME IS EXCLUDED FROM THE PROFIT OF PRECEDING YEAR, THEN THE GP RATE OF EARLIER YEAR WOULD BE LESSER. ONE VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR INCREASE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTI ON AS WELL AS HIRE CHARGES, PAYMENT TO SUB-CONTRACTOR WAS THAT, THERE WAS DELAY IN COMPLETION OF NAGPUR PROJECT, WHICH WAS A BIG PROJECT AND THE ASSESSEE H AD TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT IN THE TIME LINE AND THE BID WAS AT THE ROCK BOTTOM RATES OF THE TENDER. HE HAD ALSO TRIED TO EXPLAIN VARIOUS OTHER REASONS FOR INC REASE IN THE WAGES FROM THE ITA NO. 5669/DEL/2016 4 EARLIER YEAR AND HOW THE DELAY IN EXECUTION OF PROJ ECT HAS LED TO INCREASE IN THE LABOUR COST AND OTHER ITEMS. APART FROM THAT, H E SUBMITTED THAT MONTHWISE DETAILS OF WAGES PAID, COPY OF MUSTER ROLL, PHOTO C OPIES OF THE MUSTER ROLLS MAINTAINED AT THE SITES, PHOTOCOPIES OF ANNUAL PF R ETURNS WERE PLACED ON RECORD WHICH GOES TO SHOW THAT EACH AND EVERY LABOU R WAS IDENTIFIABLE WITH THEIR COMPLETE NAMES, ADDRESS, PF DETAILS ETC. THUS , SUCH AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE BASED ON COMPARISON OF GP RATIO AND TU RNOVER OF EARLIER YEAR CANNOT BE MADE. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPO N THE REASONING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECO RD, WE FIND THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED ALON G WITH THE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THERE WAS RISE IN THE LABOUR COST AND WAGES. HO WEVER, WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT OR DISCREPANCY, ADHOC DISAL LOWANCE ON ESTIMATE BASIS HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON SURMISES THAT IN MOST OF TH E CASES, LABOURES HAVE PUT THEIR THUMB IMPRESSION AND SOME OF THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH ETC. SUCH GENERAL OBSERVATION CANNOT BE A GROU ND FOR DISALLOWANCE IF THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED MUSTER ROLL, WAGES REGISTER ALONG WITH PF DETAILS AND ANNUAL PF RETURN, WHEREIN EACH AND EVERY LABOUR IS IDENTIFIABLE WITH COMPLETE NAMES, ADDRESSES ETC. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE SOM E OF THE LABOURERS ARE ILLITERATE AND PUT THEIR THUMB IMPRESSION AND RECEI VED WAGES IN CASH CANNOT JUSTIFY THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE. MOREOVER, WHEN ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DETAIL EXPLANATION REGARDING NATURE OF CONTRACT WOR K AND EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR INCREASE IN PERCENTAGE OF WAGES FROM EA RLIER YEAR, THEN WITHOUT ITA NO. 5669/DEL/2016 5 ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL OR FACT LAST YEARS FIGURE CAN NOT BE THE PARAMETER FOR DISALLOWANCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 16,20,954/- IS DELETED. 8. SO FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF PETTY CONTRACTORS PAYMENT IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A SUM OF RS.1,34,07,301/- AS PETTY CONTRACTORS PAYMENTS, WHICH WAS 24.28% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE 19.80% OF THE CONTRAC T RECEIPTS IN EARLIER YEAR. THUS, HE OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS EXCESS CLAIM OF EX PENSES IN THIS YEAR OF RS.30,15,807/-. ACCORDINGLY HE RESTRICTED THE DISAL LOWANCE @4.48% BEING INCREASE OF EXPENSES TO RS. 24,73,777/-. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD REDUCED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE BY GIVING PART RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF 12.91% AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,74,266/-. 10. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL HAD SUBMITTED THAT P ARTY-WISE DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCLUDING THE NAMES, ADDRESS, PAN, AMOUNT, TDS, NATURE OF WORK UNDERTAKEN ALONG WITH PHOTOCOPIES OF THE BILLS OF S UBCONTRACTORS WERE SUBMITTED, WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK ALSO. IN NEITHER OF ANY SUCH DETAILS OF EXPENSES, ANY DISCREPANCY OR DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. APART FROM THAT, IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT THE TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED @ 1% IN THE CASE OF INDIVIDUAL AND 2% IN T HE CASE OF COMPANY, AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD BY HOLD ING THAT THE TDS RATES WERE 5%. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE BILLS OF MATE RIAL OF RS. 21,06,754/- WERE INCLUDED IN THE PETTY CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS WHICH SHO ULD BE REDUCED TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF SUB-CONTRACT PAYMEN TS. LASTLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CHEQUE S AND NONE OF THE PARTIES WERE RELATED TO THE APPELLANT. 11. THE LD. DR ON THE CONTRARY, RELIED UPON THE ORD ERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A). ITA NO. 5669/DEL/2016 6 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PAR TIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT T HE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISPUTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES, I.E., EITHER THEY WERE BOGUS OR WERE NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. NO INDEPEN DENT INQUIRY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED FROM THE SUB-CONTRACTORS TO REBUT THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN ALL THE EVIDENCES AS MENTIONED BY THE LD. COUNSEL WERE PLACE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS SUBMITTED IN THE PAP ER BOOK, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN PARTY-WISE DETAILS, MENTIONING T HE NAMES AND ADDRESSES, PAN, AMOUNT, TDS, NATURE OF WORK UNDERTAKEN ALONG WITH P HOTOCOPIES OF THE BILLS OF SUBCONTRACTORS. NO DEFECT OR DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN POI NTED OUT IN THESE DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GIVEN THE REASONS AND EXPLANATION FOR SLIGHT INCREASE IN THE PAYMENTS TO PETTY CONTRACTORS OWING TO DELAY IN NAG PAL PROJECT AND VARIOUS OTHER FACTORS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION . UNDER THESE FACTS AND BACKGROUND AND WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ADVERSE MATERI AL OR DISCREPANCY FOUND, SUCH ADHOC DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. HERE, TH E ASSESSEES TRADING RESULT INCLUDING THE GP/NP RATES HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND THER EFORE, SUCH AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED WHENCE THERE IS NEI THER ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL NOR ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR THE DETAILS F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FOUND. ADHOC DISALLOWANCE, SIMPLY BY COMPARING T HE RATIO/PERCENTAGE OF SIMILAR EXPENSES IN EARLIER YEARS CANNOT BE RESORTED TO. ACCORDINGLY, SUCH A DISALLOWANCE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 13. SIMILARLY, REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF HIRE CHARG ES OF RS.15,59,374/- ON ESTIMATE BASIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT HIRE CHARGES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE 3.415% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPT, I.E., 18,86,024 /- AS AGAINST 0.55% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THUS, THESE EXPENSES ARE HIGHER BY 2 .891% AND BASED ON THIS, HE DISALLOWED THE SAID EXPENSES. THE LD. CIT(A) TOO HA S ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION ITA NO. 5669/DEL/2016 7 ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO PROPER EXPLANATION F OR THE INCREASE IN HIRE CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS DULY EX PLAINED THE REASONS FOR INCREASE IN HIRE CHARGES SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD T O CERTAIN PROJECTS RELATING TO NAGPUR CONSTRUCTION SITE AND ALSO GIVEN ENTIRE DETA ILS ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. AGAIN, NO VALID REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) EXCEPT FOR COMPARING THE INCREASE IN HIRE CH ARGES WITH THE LAST YEAR. SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE IS INCREASE IN EXPENSES, IT DOES NOT IPSO FACTO LEAD TO CONCLUSION THAT PART OF THE EXPENDITURE IS BOGUS OR NON-GENUINE OR THE EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFO RE, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE UNLESS CERTAIN DEFECTS OR DISCREPANCIES ARE PO INTED OUT IN THE EVIDENCES AND THE DETAILS FURNISHED. THEREFORE, ON THE SIMILAR RE ASON GIVEN ABOVE, NO ADHOC DISALLOWANCE IS SUSTAINABLE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAM E IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 14. COMING TO THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPH ONE EXPENSES AND VEHICLE RUNNING EXPENSES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A). UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE EXPENSES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED 20% ON THE GROUND OF PERSONAL USE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN THE DETAILS OF CALLS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISALLOWED ENTIRE EXPENDITURE RELATING TO THE PHONE INSTALLED AT THE RESIDENCE, BUT HAS REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE OF BALANCE EXPENSES TO 5% AND ACCORDING LY, SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AT RS.47,440/- AS AGA INST RS. 68,087/- DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,40,436/- UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHON E EXPENSES AS BUSINESS EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 20% ON T HE ENTIRE AMOUNT CLAIMED ON THE GROUND OF PERSONAL USE. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFO RE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.3,40,436/-, AMOUNT OF RS. 68,186/- WAS SPENT ON LAND LINE ITA NO. 5669/DEL/2016 8 PHONE INSTALLED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES AND THE AMO UNT OF RS.1,75,623/- WAS PAID TOWARDS TELEPHONE EXPENSES OF THE EMPLOYEES; AND ON LY RS. 96,629/- WAS PAID FOR ASSESSEES MOBILE PHONE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISALLOW ED THE AMOUNT OF RS.35,046/- ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE INSTALLED AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ON MOBILE PHONE AND ALSO MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 5% ON THE BALANCE CLAIM. IN SO FAR AS THE EXPENDITURE RELATING TO LAND LINE PHONES INSTALLED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES AND THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES IS CONCERNED, SAME CAN NOT BE HELD TO BE FOR PERSONAL USE OR FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE. IF AT ALL, THERE CO ULD BE SOME ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USE, THEN SAME COULD BE OUT OF THE EXPENSES OF RS.96 ,629/- INCURRED ON THE TELEPHONE USED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A PROPRIETOR. HOWEV ER, ENTIRE EXPENSES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FOR PERSONAL USE AND ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT 20% OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.96,629/- TOWARDS TELEPHONE EXPENSES OF ASSESSEE FOR MOBILE AND PHONE INSTALLED AT THE RESIDENCE CAN BE SAID TO BE FOR PE RSONAL USE OR FOR NON- BUSINESS PURPOSE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED UNDER TELEPHONE EXPENSES WORKS OUT TO RS.19,326/-. 16. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF VEHIC LE RUNNING EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED FOLLOWING EXPENDITURE : 1. VEHICLE RUNNING & MAINTENANCE RS.5,47,241/ - 2. DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR RS.3,57,243/ - TOTAL AMOUNT RS.9,04,484/ - 17. AGAIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED 20% ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE WHEREAS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWA NCE TO 10%. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FI VE CARS AND ONE CAR WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH TOO WAS FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE , AND OTHER VEHICLES WERE USED BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY. LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE CARS WERE USED BY THE EMPLOYEES AND ONE CAR BY THE ASSESSEE, TH EREFORE SOME PERSONAL ELEMENT USED BY THE PROPRIETOR CANNOT BE RULED OUT AN D ACCORDINGLY, OVER ALL ITA NO. 5669/DEL/2016 9 DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO 5%. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,862/- IS DISALLOWED. 18. IN SO FAR AS DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION IS CO NCERNED, SINCE THIS IS STATUTORY DISALLOWANCE AND MOTOR CARS WERE USED FOR THE PURPO SE OF BUSINESS FOR MORE THAN 180 DAYS, THE DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED IN FULL . THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION IS DELETED . 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH OCT., 2019. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) ( AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH OCT., 2019 *AKS* COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI