Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 684/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90136 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.684/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SHRI SHIV KUMAR, VS. THE A.C.I.T., C/O M/S SHIV PARVEEN CIRCLE V, ENTERPRISES, PLOT NO.S-33, LUDHIANA. MAIN ROAD, PHASE V, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA. PAN: AIVPK9636K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL & SHRI ASHOK GOYAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.05.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA DATED 28.5.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BO TH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD. 3. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL AND NEEDS NO ADJUDICATIO N. 2 4. ON GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDI TION OF RS.1,53,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE UN DER SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.11,76,000/- UNDER THE HEAD SALARY AND WAGES. OUT OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SALARY OF RS.2,25,000/- TO HIS SON SHRI AMANDEEP KUMAR AND RS.1,59,000/- TO HIS SO N SHRI DANIEL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DUR ING THE YEAR MAXIMUM SALARY PAID TO OTHER EMPLOYEES IS RS.84,000/- PER ANNUM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURT HER NOTED THAT SHRI AMANDEEP KUMAR WAS ONLY 10 TH PASS AND NOT TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCO RDINGLY HELD THAT SALARY PAID TO SHRI AMANDEEP KUMAR WAS EXCESSIVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.1,5 3,000/- OUT OF SALARY PAID TO SHRI AMANDEEP KUMAR UNDER SEC TION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. 6. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION IS QUO TED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BRIEFLY E XPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS APPROXIMATELY 57 YEARS OF AGE AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS/PROFESSION OF PROVIDING SER VICES OF CRANE ON JOB WORK BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGES , HEAVY LOAD MACHINERY AND IN UPLIFTING OF MACHINERY IN FUR NACES MEANING THEREBY THE BUSINESS/PROFESSION OF PROVIDIN G THE SERVICES WITH AID OF CRANES WHICH CAN BASICALLY BE DONE BY THE YOUNG AND ENERGETIC PERSONS. THE CRANES COULD NOT BE 3 OPERATED BY EVERY LABOURER AND NEED EXPERIENCE TO O PERATE THE SAME. ANY MIS-HAPPENING OF THE CRANES CAN COS T IN LACS OF RUPEES FOR ITS REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. TH E SAFETY OF THE CRANES IS ALSO REQUIRED. THE ASSESSEE COULD H IRE THE SERVICES FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES BUT WHICH WOULD COST MORE. THE SONS OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE IN A BETTER POSIT ION TO TAKE CARE OF THE CRANES. THEREFORE, THE SALARY PA ID TO THEM WAS QUITE GENUINE AND REASONABLE. THE SALARY PAID TO SHRI DANIEL, WHO IS MECHANICAL ENGINEER AND HAS KNOWLEDG E WAS REASONABLE SALARY IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEA R WERE OF RS.35.17 LACS AND THE SALARY/WAGES PAID WERE RS.7,2 0,000/- WHEREAS DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE RECEIPTS A RE OF RS.76.72 LACS, AGAINST WHICH SALARY/WAGES WERE PAID TO THE TUNE OF RS.11.76 LACS. THE EXPENSES ARE LESSER AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEARS RATIO AND RECEIPTS AR E MORE AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, NO UNRE ASONABLE SALARY HAS BEEN PAID. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE SONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DOING JOB FOR ABOUT 11 TO 13 HOURS IN A DAY, WHEREAS THE WORKERS WOULD BE AVAILABLE FO R 6 TO 7 HOURS IN A DAY AND CONSIDERING THE MORE RECEIPTS TH E ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE DISALLOWANCE . THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE SALARY PAID TO OTHER EMPLOYEES WAS LESSER. SHRI AMANDEEP KUMAR WAS NOT TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED. IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR IN W HICH HE HAS WORKED FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 4 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITION IS ON EXCESSIVE SIDE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT BOTH THE SONS HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR OPERATING THE CRANES. THE ASSESSEE I S ABOUT 57 YEARS OF AGE AND THE NATURE OF THE WORK PERFORME D BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SUCH THAT THE HELP OF OTHERS ARE REQUI RED FOR OPERATING THE CRANES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID N OT DISALLOW ANY SALARY/WAGES PAID TO OTHER SON OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI DANIEL IN A SUM OF RS.1,59,000/-. BOTH THE SONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DOING SAME JOB FOR THE ASSESSEE AN D MERELY BECAUSE SHRI AMANDEEP KUMAR WAS NOT TECHNICALLY QUA LIFIED WOULD NOT GIVE OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O DISALLOW THE SALARY SUBSTANTIALLY. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE TH AT THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS COMPARED TO THE PRE CEDING YEAR AND IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SALARY/ WAGES PAID WAS COMPARABLY LOWER IN PERCENTAGE AS WAS PAID IN T HE EARLIER YEARS. THESE FACTS WOULD CLEARLY SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BOTH THE SONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN WORKING WHOLE HEARTEDLY FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THROUGH THEIR EFFORTS TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASS ESSEE HAVE INCREASED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS F AILED TO MAKE OUT A CASE OF ANY UN-REASONABLE PAYMENT TO THE SONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT TH AT SHRI AMANDEEP KUMAR WAS NOT QUALIFIED AS AGAINST THE QUALIFICATION OF OTHER SON SHRI DANIEL, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE TO RESTRICT THE SALARY P AID TO SHRI AMANDEEP KUMAR SLIGHTLY LESSER AS WAS GIVEN TO SHRI 5 DANIEL BECAUSE BOTH OF THEM WERE DOING THE SAME JOB FOR THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT W OULD BE REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW SALARY PAID TO SHRI AMANDEEP KUMAR IN A SUM OF RS.1,50,000/- AS AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF SALARY OF RS.2,25,000/-, THEREBY THE ADD ITION IS RESTRICTED TO RS.75,000/- ONLY. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE ACCORDINGLY MODIFIED TO THE E XTENT THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE FOR PAYING SALARY TO SHRI AMANDEEP KUMAR WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO RS.75,00 0/- ONLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. ON GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,74,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANC E OF DEPRECIATION ON CRANE. 10. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,74,000 @ 15% ON A CRANE, WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED ON 1.4.2007 FOR RS.11,60,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THIS CRANE WAS PURCHAS ED FROM M/S INDO CONSTRUCTION, NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSING O FFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT M/S INDO CONSTRUCTION HAD PURCHA SED THIS CRANE IN AUGUST, 2006 FROM CONTINENTAL CONSTRU CTION LTD., NEW DELHI, WHO HAD PURCHASED THIS CRANE IN TH E YEAR 1990. ON THE BILL OF INDO CONSTRUCTION, IT WAS ME NTIONED THAT THE CRANE IS OLD USED AND UNSERVICEABLE. THE 6 ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE PURCHASE BILL FOR THE AFORESAID CRANE. THE ASSESS EE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF PUR CHASE BILL FROM M/S INDO CONSTRUCTION AND ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE FOR OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS USAGE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. 11. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS INCORPORATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IN WHICH THE AS SESSEE EXPLAINED THAT PAYMENT OF RS.15 LACS WAS MADE TO M/ S INDO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND AFTER NEGOTIATION RS.3,40, 000/- WERE RETURNED BACK. THE COPY OF THE SAME HAS ALRE ADY BEEN PLACED ON ASSESSMENT RECORD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T THE CRANE THOUGH UNSERVICEABLE AS PER BILL ON ACCOUNT O F FACT THAT ORIGINAL CRANE IS OF 5 TO 6 TIMES OF THIS VALU E. SECOND-HAND CRANE AND UNSERVICEABLE IT TO PUT ON TH E BILL TO IDENTIFY QUANTITY OF THE CRANE FOR MAKING VERIFICAT ION FOR TRANSIT AND AT STATE BORDERS. THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM THE CRANE HAVE INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY, WHICH WERE MORE THAN DOUBLE. THEREFORE, IT WOULD PROVE THAT THE ASSESS EE USED THE CRANE IN QUESTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS OF OWNERSHIP OF MACHINERY ALONGWITH THE REPLY. THE P AYMENTS ARE MADE BY MEANS OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, WHICH H AVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION ON THE CRANE SO PURCH ASED. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE 7 CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THIS GROUN D OF APPEAL. THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN PARA 5.3 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 5.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT'S SU BMISSION. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT RS.15,00,000/- WAS PAID TO M/S INDO CONSTRUCTION ON 26.03.2007 AS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF CRANE AND AFTER NEGOTIATION THE RATE WAS SETTLED FOR RS.L1,60,000/-. RS.3,40,0 00/- WAS RECEIVED BACK BY THE APPELLANT ON 12.04.2007. APPELLANT SUBMITTED A COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S INDO CONSTRUCTION IN ITS BOOKS. THE ACCOUNT READS A S UNDER: DATE PARTICULARS VCH TYPE VCH NO. DEBIT CREDIT 1.4.2007 TO ADVANCE FOR CRANE JOURNAL 03 15,00,000.00 TRF. FROM ADVANCE FOR CRANE CH.NO.170935 FOR P.N. BANK. BY CRANE (INDO CONST.) JOURNAL 04 1 1,60,000.00 12.04.2007 P.N.B. RECEIPT 04 3,40,000.00 O/A0765002100432354 ___________________ ___ 15,00,000.00 15,00,000.00 IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM FOR PURCHASE OF CRANE, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THE BILL ISSUED BY INDO CONSTRUCTION. AS PER THIS B ILL DATED 24.03.2007, THE CRANE HAS BEEN SOLD TO THE APPELLANT FOR RS.10,40,0 00/- INCLUDING VAT. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED ANOTHER BILL DATED 24.03.2007 F OR RS.L.20 LACS WHICH MENTIONS COST OF LOADING, TRANSPORTATION, UNLOADIN G AND REASSEMBLING OF CRANE. THERE IS APPARENT CONTRADICTION IN THE AP PELLANT'S SUBMISSION. WHILE THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE CRANE WAS PURCHASED ON 01.04.2007 FOR WHICH ADVANCE OF RS.15.00 LACS WAS G IVEN ON 26.03.2007, THE PURCHASE BILL SHOWS THE DATE OF SALE ON 24.03.2007. IF THE COST OF CRANE WAS ALREADY SETTLED ON 24.03.2007 THERE WAS NO REASON O F GIVING ADVANCE OF RS.15.00 LACS ON 26.03.2007. FURTHER, WHILE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT COST OF CRANE IS RS. 11, 60,000/-, AS PER THE 8 PURCHASE BILL THE COST IS RS.10,40,000/-. THE APPEL LANT ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S IND O CONSTRUCTION. THE ACCOUNT READS AS UNDER:- DATE PARTICULARS VCH TYPE VCH NO. DEBIT CR EDIT 26.3.2007 BY ICICI BANK RECEIPT 171 15,00,000. 00 028805002027 CH.NO.170935 TO COLES CRANE 54/60 NO.2 JOURNAL 1208 11,60,000.0 0 31.03.2007 TO ICICI BANK PAYMENT 2149 3,40 ,000.00 028805002027 _____ ____________________ 15,00,000.00 15,00,000.00 PERUSAL OF THE ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT M/S INDO CONSTRUC TION HAD NOT SHOWN THE BILLS DATED 24.03.2007 IN ITS ACCOUNT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS QUITE APPARENT THAT TH E BILL SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT GENUINE AND CLAIM FOR PURCHASE OF CRANE REMAINS UNSUBSTANTIATED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE DISALL OWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 13. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF ASSESSEE FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSM ENT YEAR ENDING ON 31.3.2007, IN WHICH UNDER THE HEAD LOANS AND ADVANCES AS ON 31.3.2007 A SUM OF RS.15 LACS HAD B EEN SHOWN AS ADVANCE FOR CRANE. IT WOULD MEAN THAT IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN AD VANCE OF RS.15 LACS FOR PURCHASE OF CRANE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S INDO CONSTRUCTION IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEA LS), 9 WHICH IS REPRODUCED ABOVE. IT WOULD SHOW THAT ON 1.4.2007 ADVANCE WAS SHOWN AGAINST M/S INDO CONSTRUCTION THR OUGH CHEQUE NO.170935 IN P.N. BANK. THEREFORE, THE ADV ANCE IS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SELLER THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. ON THE SAME DATE ON 1.4.2007, ANOTHER ENTRY IS MADE OF RS.11,60,000/- FOR CRANE. THE COPY OF THE SAME LE DGER ACCOUNT IS FILED AT PAGE 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHIC H FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE COST OF THE CRANE WAS RS.10,40,0 00/- AND RS.1,20,000/- WAS THE COST OF LOADING OF THE CRANE FROM DELHI TO LUDHIANA AND TRANSPORTATION, ETC. THUS T HE TOTAL COST OF THE PURCHASE OF CRANE WAS RS.11,60,000/-. THE REST OF THE ADVANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3,40,000/- WAS RETURNED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 12.4.2007 THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. TH E COPIES OF THE PURCHASE BILL DATED 24.3.2007 OF CRAN E IS FILED ON PAGE 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE COST OF TRANSP ORTATION, LOADING AND UNLOADING OF DATED 24.3.2007 IS FILED A T PAGE 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FOUN D CONTRADICTION IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEC AUSE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE CRANE WAS PURCHASED ON 1. 4.2007 AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT BUT THE PURCHASE BILL SHO WS THE DATE OF SALE AS 24.3.2007. THERE IS NO SUCH CONTRA DICTION IN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ADVANCE OF RS.15 LACS WAS GIVEN IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR END ING 31.3.2007. THEREFORE, THE SAME WOULD BE THE OPENI NG BALANCE ON 1.4.2007 IN A SUM OF RS.15 LACS AS ADVAN CE FOR CRANE. THE PURCHASE AND TRANSPORTATION BILLS ARE OF 24.3.2007, WHICH WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 10 UNDER APPEAL. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. MAY BE THE BILL IS I SSUED ON 24.3.2007 BUT THE ADVANCE COULD BE GIVEN ON 26.3.20 07. IF ANY EXPLANATION WAS TO BE CALLED FOR ON THIS POINT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD EXAMINE THE SELLER OF THE CRANE M/S INDO CONSTRUCTION, NEW DELHI BUT NO EFFORTS HAVE BE EN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE VERIFICATION OF TH E SAME FACTS. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FURTHER NOTED TH AT THE COST OF THE CRANE CLAIMED IN A SUM OF RS.11,60,000/ - BUT THE COST OF THE CRANE IS OF RS.10,40,000/-. THE L EARNED CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE COST OF TRANSPORT ATION, LOADING AND UNLOADING OF RS.1,20,000/- SHALL BE ADD ED TO THE COST OF THE CRANE , WHICH IN FACT, HAS BEEN ADD ED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S INDO CONSTRUCTION AS IS NOTED ABOVE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO UNUSUAL IN THE EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING AN Y DOUBT IN HIS MIND REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF THE CRANE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S INDO CONSTRUCTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE VERIFIED ANY FACT FROM THE SELLER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT ALL THE TRANSACTION S HAVE BEEN DONE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND AS SUCH, IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED TH E CRANE IN QUESTION. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ALSO FAIL ED TO NOTE THAT AFTER PURCHASE OF THE CRANE IN QUESTION IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESS EE FROM CRANE BUSINESS HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED. THER EFORE, WITHOUT PURCHASE OF THE CRANE IN QUESTION THE RECEI PTS OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED . THE 11 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE PAYMENTS BY M EANS OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND ALL TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO T MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DO UBT THE PURCHASE OF CRANE BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE ASSESS EE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE CRANE IN QUESTION WAS P URCHASED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND WAS USED FOR TH E PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE DEPRECIATION W AS ALLOWABLE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITIO N IS DELETED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRA NT DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE AS IS CLAIMED. 14. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF MAY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 25 TH MAY, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH