ITO, Bangalore V. Shri. Muniraj P., Bangalore

ITA 616/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89955 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

ITA.616/BANG/2014 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.616/BANG/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), BANGALORE ..APPELLANT V. SHRI. MUNIRAJ P, NO.27/1, VASANTHAPURA MAIN ROAD, KONAKUNTE CROSS, BANGALORE 560 062 ..RESPONDENT PAN : AIDPM3453E ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. V. SRIDHAR, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI.P. DHIVAHAR, JCIT HEARD ON : 02.06.2015 PRONOUNCED ON : 11.06.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE, IT IS AGGRIEVED TH AT CIT (A)-V, BANGALORE, VIDE HIS ORDER DT.29.01.2014, ADMITTED FRESH EVIDEN CE WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 02. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE DERIVING INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF STONE CRUSHING AND READYMADE CONCRETE MIX, HAD FILED HIS RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF ITA.616/BANG/2014 PAGE - 2 RS.8,88,040/- FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. AS SESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON JELLY CRUSHER AND TRANSIT MIXER OF R.17,06,179/- AND RS.8,55,001/- RESPECTIVELY. AO NOTED THAT MIXERS WORTH RS.57 LAK HS WERE PUT TO USE ONLY AFTER SEPTEMBER2007. HE, THEREFORE, RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION TO 15%, INSTEAD OF 30% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY FOR JELL Y CRUSHER ON WHICH ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.34,13,357/-, AO WAS OF T HE OPINION THAT THESE WERE PUT TO USE AFTER SEPTEMBER, 2007. BASED ON THE FIXED A SSETS SCHEDULE FILED BEFORE HIM, AO RESTRICTED THE DEPRECIATION ON SUCH JELLY CRUSHE RS ALSO TO 15%, TAKING A VIEW THAT IT WAS USED FOR LESS THAN SIX MONTHS. AGGRIEVED AS SESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 03. BEFORE THE CIT (A), ASSESSEE CONCEDED ITS GROUN DS ON DEPRECIATION ON TRANSIT MIXER VEHICLES. HOWEVER, IT PRESSED ITS GROUNDS RE GARDING DEPRECIATION CLAIM ON JELLY CRUSHERS. ASSESSEE PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND FROM SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, CIT (A) NOTED THAT THE JELLY CRUSHERS WERE ACQUIRED IN JULY, 2007 AND PRODUCTION STARTED IN SEPTEMBER, 2007. HE FOUND TH AT THE PRODUCTION REGISTER AS WELL AS SALEE BILLS CLEARLY SUBSTANTIATED THE CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE THAT JELLY CRUSHERS WERE USED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 2007. HE ALLOWED THE CL AIM OF DEPRECIATION ON JELLY CRUSHERS. 04. NOW BEFORE US, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT FRESH EVID ENCE IN THE NATURE OF PRODUCTION REGISTER AND BILLS FOR JELLY SALE WERE P RODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND THE CIT (A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM WITHO UT SEEKING A REPORT FROM THE AO. ITA.616/BANG/2014 PAGE - 3 04. PER CONTRA, LD. AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 05. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO JELLY CRUSHER ON WHICH ASSESSEE CLAIMED D EPRECIATION OF RS.34,13,357/-, WHICH WAS CURTAILED BY HALF BY THE AO FOR A REASON THAT JELLY CRUSHERS WERE USED FOR LESS THAN SIX MONTHS. WHAT WE FIND IS THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS AND VOUCHERS, BANK STATEMENTS AND OTHER DETAILS CALLED FOR. AO H AS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THESE WERE EXAMINED CAREFULLY. WHAT THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT BEFO RE THE CIT (A) WAS ITS LEDGER ACCOUNTS, PRODUCTION REGISTER AND SALE BILLS FOR HA VING SOLD THE JELLY PRODUCED USING THE JELLY CRUSHERS. ONCE THE AO HIMSELF HAS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WERE CAREFULLY VERIFIED BY HIM, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COPIES OF THE SALE BILLS OR THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT (A) WERE FRESH EVIDENCE. IN OUR OPINION, T HERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED BY THE CIT (A). WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 06. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11TH DAY OF J UNE, 2015. SD/- SD/- (N. V. VASUDEVAN) (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER