Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
आदेश/Order
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 03.03.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)].
The sole issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is relating to the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the addition of ₹ 5,66,365/- made
by the Assessing officer on account of disallowance of depreciation on SILO Seed Storage Tanks.
ITA No. 966-Chd-2017 Smt. Sandhya Khandelia, Chandigarh 2
The brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee is
engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of mustard oil by
crushing mustard seeds. The assessee to store the mustard seeds
installed SILO Seed storage Tanks (In short ‘SILO’) and claimed
depreciation on the same. However, the Assessing officer denied the
depreciation claimed by the assessee on the aforesaid mentioned SILO
Seed Storage Tanks observing that the bills for the said storage tank
sold to the assessee by its sister concern was of 31.3.2013 i.e on the
last day of the financial year and that under the circumstances the
assessee could not have put to use the aforesaid SILO during the year.
In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the
Assessing officer.
Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to
the relevant findings given by the CIT(A) in para 7 of the impugned
order as well as copy of the Challan produced at paper book page 300 to
submit that in fact the SILO was purchased / delivered at the premises
on 15.4.2012, the same was installed during the year and also put to
use. He has invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A)
wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the last cement bill was of
dated 15.3.2013. The assessee has demonstrated before the CIT(A) that
the cement bills were of purchases made on 25.4.2012 onwards and the
ITA No. 966-Chd-2017 Smt. Sandhya Khandelia, Chandigarh 3 SILO was duly installed. Further that in the month of March 2013, the
only boundary wall of the plant was competed. Merely because the bill
was raised by the sister concern on 31.3.2013 that alone cannot be a
reason to deny the claim of depreciation.
After perusal of the order of the CIT(A), we find that the purchase
of cement and other material and even the use of the crane for shifting
the SILO is found mention in the impugned order of the CIT(A).
However, the depreciation has been denied because the bills was raised
by the sister concern on 31.3.2013. The action of the lower authorities
in denying the depreciation on this count alone cannot be held to be
justified when the assessee otherwise has demonstrated that the SILO
was brought to its premises on 15.4.2012 and the installation was
completed during the year 2012 and the same was put to use. The
impugned disallowance made by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. The disallowance of depreciation is,
therefore, set aside and the addition made on this account is ordered to
be deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03/06/2019
Sd/- Sd/- (संजय गग� / SANJAY GARG) (एन. के. सैनी / N.K. SAINI) उपा�य� / Vice President �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member Dated : 03.06.2019 “आर.के.”
ITA No. 966-Chd-2017 Smt. Sandhya Khandelia, Chandigarh 4 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar