M/S. SOHAMASAA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the adjournment was granted on the specific request of counsel appearing for the assessee. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.

The assessee is contesting the decision of ld CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of depreciation claimed on purchase of software.

We heard ld DR and perused the record. The assesee had claimed depreciation @ 60% on software purchases of Rs.82.74 lakhs. Before the AO, the assessee could not furnish the relevant invoices in order to prove that the software was purchased during the year relevant to the asst. year 2013-14. Hence, the AO disallowed the claim of depreciation. The ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

From the statement of facts filed by the assessee we noticed that the asseseee has furnished copies of invoices evidencing purchase of software before the ld CIT(A). However, the same has escaped the attention of ld CIT(A). In the appeal memo also assessee has furnished invoice dated 16/7/2012 raised by M/s Qualcomm CDMC Technologies for an amount of $40,000/-. Thus we noticed that the assessee has furnished copies of certain invoices and the same has not been considered by the tax authorities. under the set of facts we are of the view that this issue requires a fresh examination at the end of AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and restore the same to the file of the AO for examining it afresh. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.