V GO MOTOR PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 26(1), NEW DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM:
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated
05.03.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9,
New Delhi, pertaining to assessment year 2014-15.
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.,
2 ITA No. 2675/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15
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.
It is further evident, the notice of hearing sent to the assessee
through speed post in the address for communication mentioned
in Form No. 36 has returned back unserved with the postal
remark “left”. Aforesaid events clearly establish the carelessness
and lack of interest of the assessee in pursuing the appeal.
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
3 ITA No. 2675/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15
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.
In respect of purchases of Rs.80,39,761/- since the assessee
could not furnish any cogent evidence, the Assessing Officer
treated it as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and
added back to the income of the assessee. Additionally, he added
back further sum of Rs.53,94,028 under section 69 of the Act
doubting the genuineness of expenditure incurred on account of
labour, local purchases and other payments.
4 ITA No. 2675/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15
Consequent to such additions, the Assessing Officer also
disallowed the depreciation claimed of Rs. 14,32,307/-.
Contesting the additions/disallowances made, the assessee
preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). After
considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of
facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals),
having found that the expenditure incurred representing the
additions made to the fixed assets were duly recorded in the
books of account of the assessee, held that no addition can be
made under section 69A or 69 of the Act. Thus, he deleted the
addition of Rs.80,39,791/- and Rs.53,94,028/-. However, so far
as the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.14,32,307/- is
concerned, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the
disallowance.
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
5 ITA No. 2675/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15
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.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st March, 2022
Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (SAKTIJIT DEY) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 31st March, 2022. RK/- Copy forwarded to:
6 ITA No. 2675/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15
Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
