V GO MOTOR PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 26(1), NEW DELHI

When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of record, it is noticed, the appeal was fixed for hearing on three occasions earlier, i.e., 13.07.2021, 15.09.2021 and 15.11.2021. However, on each date of hearing, the assessee was absent. In fact, in spite of proceedings of the Bench dated 15th November, 2021 and 13th January, 2022, having been uploaded in the official website, the position did not improve and the assessee still remained absent.

In view of the aforesaid, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing learned Departmental Representative and based on materials available on record.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the materials on record. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.14,32,307/-

Briefly the facts are, assessee is a resident company. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 17.09.2014 declaring income of Rs.7,29,260/-. In course of scrutiny assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has shown addition to the fixed assets to the tune of Rs.4,08,77,164/-, primarily, on renovation of building and plant & machinery. Noticing the above, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to furnish details of additions made to assets along with bills and vouchers. After examining the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer, to verify the authenticity of the expenditure made towards renovation of building and plant & machinery, conducted inquiry by issuing notices under section 133(6) of the Act. As observed by the Assessing Officer, in some instances reply was received in response to notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act. In some instances, though, notices were served, however, there was no response. In many instances, the notices returned back unserved.

Consequent to such additions, the Assessing Officer also disallowed the depreciation claimed of Rs. 14,32,307/-.

On perusal of record, it is evident that the departmental authorities have given a concurrent finding that the assessee failed to furnish any cogent/supporting evidence to establish that it had actually incurred the expenditure towards purchase and renovation of fixed assets. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of certain expenditure claimed to have been incurred by assessee only for the reason that the provisions of section 69A cannot be invoked as such expenditure has been duly recorded in the books of account. However, fact remains, the assessee was unable to fully establish the incurring of part of the expenditure which was further compounded by non-response to the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act.

In that view of the matter, we do not find any deficiency in the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in reducing the alleged expenditure of Rs.1,34,33,789/- from the value of fixed assets and consequently restricting the depreciation only to the extent of the reduced value fixed assets. The assessee has not furnished any material, even, before us to demonstrate that the purchases to the extent of Rs.1,34,33,789/- are genuine. In view of the aforesaid, we uphold the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.14,32,307/-. Grounds are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.