Rockwell Infrastructure Private Limited, New Delhi V. ACIT Circle-21(2), New Delhi

ITA 8890/DEL/2019

AI Insights

Rockwell Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi, which affirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2015-16. The additions included disallowance of depreciation on second-hand machines due to lack of documentary evidence, disallowance of a portion of transit mixture running expenses, and addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal decided the appeal ex parte due to the absence of the appellant at the hearing and supported the decisions of the lower authorities, citing the lack of cogent evidence from the Assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 116376 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; TDS
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 8890/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rockwell Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., C-14, 4 th Floor, Bunglow Road, Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi PAN: AAECR3260Q VersuS DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Arora, Ld. Sr. DR Date of hearing : 14.12.2022 Date of order : 28.12.2022 ORDER PER BENCH: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 15.03.2019, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi (in short “Ld. Commissioner”) u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2015-16. ITA No. 8890/Del/2019 2 2. Brief facts, relevant for adjudication of this appeal are that in the instant case, on perusal of the balance sheet, the Assessing Officer noticed that the Assessee has claimed depreciation on the fixed assets added in the block of assets, i.e., (i) line Pump worth Rs.10,35,912/- @ 7.5% used for less than 180 days, and Concrete Pump worth Rs.23,62,626/-, Transit Mixture worth Rs.44,00,000/- and another Transit Mixture worth Rs.9,00,000/- at the rate of 15% used for more than 180 days. The Assessee stated these assets as second hand machines. 2.1 The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the Assessee regarding depreciation claimed on Line Pump, and two Transit Mixtures worth Rs.10,35,912/-, Rs.44,00,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- respectively on the premise that the Assessee had no documentary evidence or original bills of assets, details of address of the transferor and the details of the delivery of the above assets and accordingly made addition of Rs.8,72,693.40 to the income of the Assessee. 2.2 The Assessing Officer further noticed that the Assessee had claimed Transit Mixture Running Expenses amounting to Rs.14,83,264/-. In this regard the Assessee claimed that the major ITA No. 8890/Del/2019 3 portion of these expenses is of diesel and petrol, on which TDS provisions are not attracted. The Assessing Officer rejected the said contention of the Assessee on the premise that in the profit and loss account, power and fuel expenses have been separately claimed by the Assessee and therefore, in the absence of necessary details and nature of expenses, copies of bills etc., the Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of these expenses amounting to Rs.2,96,652/- and added this amount to the income of the Assessee. 2.3 The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.76,10,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act by disallowing the claim of Assessee on the premise that this amount represents the unsecured loan raised from Shri Pankaj Singhal (Rs.40 lacs) and Vikash Singhal (Rs.36.10 lacs). From the perusal of bank statements of both the creditors, the loan amounts were seen to be credited in their bank accounts on the same day or a day before lending the amount to the Assessee company and accordingly, their creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction was doubtful. 3 Being aggrieved against the said additions, the Assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order, affirmed all the three additions made by the ITA No. 8890/Del/2019 4 Assessing Officer on the same reasoning as mentioned in the assessment order. 4. Though notice for hearing on 14-12-2022 was sent to the Assessee at the address given in Form No. 36, but the same returned back to the Registry with the remark of Postal Authority “Left without address”. As a matter of fact, the Assessee till date has not intimated any change in its address. Hence, in the constrained circumstances, we are inclined to decide this appeal as ex parte after hearing the ld. DR who supported the orders of the authorities below. In the absence of any substantive materials or documentary evidences before us to support the grounds raised by Assessee in the instant appeal, we find no justification to interfere with the conclusions reached by the ld. authorities below on disallowance of depreciation, disallowance of transit mixture running expenses and addition u/s. 68 of the Act. Since the Assessee also failed to adduce satisfactory documentary evidences in support of its above claims before the ld. authorities below and before us as well, hence the additions made by the ld. authorities below are liable to be sustained. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Assessee, being not substantiated by any cogent evidence, deserve to be dismissed . ITA No. 8890/Del/2019 5 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/12/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *aks/-