ITO, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. MUNIRAJ P., BANGALORE

In this appeal filed by Revenue, it is aggrieved that CIT (A)-V, Bangalore, vide his order dt.29.01.2014, admitted fresh evidence without providing opportunity to the AO and allowed the claim of the assessee.

Facts apropos are that assessee deriving income from the business of stone crushing and readymade concrete mix, had filed his return declaring income of ITA.616/Bang/2014 Page - 2 Rs.8,88,040/- for the impugned assessment year. Assessee had claimed depreciation on jelly crusher and transit mixer of R.17,06,179/- and Rs.8,55,001/- respectively. AO noted that mixers worth Rs.57 lakhs were put to use only after September2007. He, therefore, restricted the claim of depreciation to 15%, instead of 30% claimed by the assessee. Similarly for jelly crusher on which assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.34,13,357/-, AO was of the opinion that these were put to use after September, 2007. Based on the fixed assets schedule filed before him, AO restricted the depreciation on such jelly crushers also to 15%, taking a view that it was used for less than six months. Aggrieved assessee moved in appeal before the CIT (A).

Before the CIT (A), assessee conceded its grounds on depreciation on transit mixer vehicles. However, it pressed its grounds regarding depreciation claim on jelly crushers. Assessee produced books of account and from such books of account, CIT (A) noted that the jelly crushers were acquired in July, 2007 and production started in September, 2007. He found that the production register as well as salee bills clearly substantiated the claim by the assessee that jelly crushers were used before September 2007. He allowed the claim of depreciation on jelly crushers.

Per contra, Ld. AR supported the order of the first appellate authority.

We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. The issue is with regard to jelly crusher on which assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.34,13,357/-, which was curtailed by half by the AO for a reason that jelly crushers were used for less than six months. What we find is that in the assessment order it is specifically mentioned that the assessee had produced the books of accounts, bills and vouchers, bank statements and other details called for. AO has also mentioned that these were examined carefully. What the assessee brought before the CIT (A) was its ledger accounts, production register and sale bills for having sold the jelly produced using the jelly crushers. Once the AO himself has stated in the assessment order that bills and vouchers were produced by the assessee and were carefully verified by him, we cannot say that the copies of the sale bills or the ledger accounts produced before the CIT (A) were fresh evidence. In our opinion, there was no violation of Rule 46A. Claim of the assessee was rightly considered by the CIT (A). We find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT (A).

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.