Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”, BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Dr. A.L. Saini, AM:
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2015-16, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Kolkata, in appeal no. 10587/CIT(A)-2/2017-18, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) dated 20/12/2017.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as follows:
RMV IT Services (P) Ltd. Assessment Year:2015-16 1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 14,33,621/- made by the Assessing Officer.
2. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.
Brief facts qua the issue are that during the scrutiny proceeding, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee company has claimed depreciation of Rs.43,07,373/- in its return of income for the A.Y.2015-16. From the details, it was noted that all the assets were purchased during the F.Y.2014-15 relevant to A.Y.2015-16, During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has filed the copies of purchase bills of the assets in support of his claim. On verification of such purchase bills, it was noted by Assessing Officer that some of the bills are not proper, Bills were unsigned, unstamped, details/nomenclatures such as model no, making company of block of assests under computer category were not mentioned in the bills, some bills were casually hand written without any address and seems to be not genuine. Accordingly, AO issued a show cause notice dated 07-12-2017 to the assessee. The said show cause letter is reproduced below:-
In the financial year 2014-15, the assessee company has claimed depreciation of Rs.43,07,373/-. In support of your claim, you have submitted the copies of purchase bills of the assets. On verification of purchase bills, it was noted that some of the purchase bills are not proper. Some of the bills were unsigned, unstamped, no payments details were mentioned, no proper details/nomenclatures of the Items were mentioned such as model no, Make of the company, year of make, some bills were casually hand written. Details of such purchase bills are as below:
RMV IT Services (P) Ltd. RMV IT Services (P) Ltd. Year: Assessment Year:2015-16
RMV IT Services (P) Ltd. RMV IT Services (P) Ltd. Year: Assessment Year:2015-16 From the above observations, an amount of Rs. 14,33,621/ From the above observations, an amount of Rs. 14,33,621/ From the above observations, an amount of Rs. 14,33,621/- on account of depreciation is proposed to be disallowed, details of which are as follows: depreciation is proposed to be disallowed, details of which are as follows: depreciation is proposed to be disallowed, details of which are as follows:
As such, the above said purchase bills as submitted by the assessee are As such, the above said purchase bills as submitted by the assessee are As such, the above said purchase bills as submitted by the assessee are treated as not genuine and accordingly, depreciation amounting to Rs. 14,33,621/ and accordingly, depreciation amounting to Rs. 14,33,621/ and accordingly, depreciation amounting to Rs. 14,33,621/- as claimed on the above assets claimed on the above assets was disallowed by Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the order passed by the Assessing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the order passed by the Assessing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer observing the followings: Officer observing the followings: “I have considered the grounds of appeal
, statement of fa I have considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts as well as the order cts as well as the order of the assessing officer framed in the light of the materials available on record of the assessing officer framed in the light of the materials available on record of the assessing officer framed in the light of the materials available on record before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. The AO has before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. The AO has before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. The AO has mentioned that copies of bills were submitted but it was noted that some o mentioned that copies of bills were submitted but it was noted that some o mentioned that copies of bills were submitted but it was noted that some of the purchases bills are no proper. Some of the bills were unsigned. Unstamped, no purchases bills are no proper. Some of the bills were unsigned. Unstamped, no purchases bills are no proper. Some of the bills were unsigned. Unstamped, no payment details were mentioned, no proper details / nomenclatures of the items payment details were mentioned, no proper details / nomenclatures of the items payment details were mentioned, no proper details / nomenclatures of the items were mentioned such as model no , make of company year of make and some bills were mentioned such as model no , make of company year of make and some bills were mentioned such as model no , make of company year of make and some bills were casually hand written. The AO has also given details of such bills in the and written. The AO has also given details of such bills in the and written. The AO has also given details of such bills in the assessment order at page 2 and 3. I agree with the view as taken by the AO in the assessment order at page 2 and 3. I agree with the view as taken by the AO in the assessment order at page 2 and 3. I agree with the view as taken by the AO in the matter. Keeping in view of the facts as mentioned above, in the absence of any matter. Keeping in view of the facts as mentioned above, in the absence of any matter. Keeping in view of the facts as mentioned above, in the absence of any cogent material evidence, I do cogent material evidence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the assessing not find any infirmity in the order of the assessing officer and the same is hereby upheld. In view of above, this ground of appeal is officer and the same is hereby upheld. In view of above, this ground of appeal is officer and the same is hereby upheld. In view of above, this ground of appeal is dismissed.”
5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the he assessee has relied on the submission made before the authorities below and on the other hand the ld. DR has primarily reiterated the authorities below and on the other hand the ld. DR has primarily reiterated the authorities below and on the other hand the ld. DR has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer which we have already noted in our earlier stand taken by the Assessing Officer which we have already noted in our earlier stand taken by the Assessing Officer which we have already noted in our earlier para and the same is not being repeated for the sake para and the same is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.
RMV IT Services (P) Ltd. Assessment Year:2015-16
We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials available on record. We note that at the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has fairly agreed with the Bench that out of Rs. 14,33,621/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- may be disallowed on account of miscellaneous deficiency or differences. The ld. D.R. for the revenue has also agreed with the bench that in order to cover the miscellaneous deficiencies a minimum of Rs. 1,00,000/- may be disallowed. Therefore out of Rs. 14,33,621/- we disallow Rs. 1,00,000/- and balance of Rs. 13,23,621/-, is directed to be deleted.
Before parting, it is noted that the order is being pronounced after 90 days of hearing. However, taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. For coming to such a conclusion, we rely upon the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIJT vs JCB Limited in and ITA No. 6103/Mum/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 order dated 14.05.2020.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 17.06.2020