Case Law Details
Owens Corning India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
We observe that in A.Y. 2006-07 Assessing Officer observed that assessee has claimed depreciation of ₹.93,40,242/- and when the assessee was asked to submit the supporting evidences in support of the above claim, assessee failed to furnish the supporting evidences such as bills, date on which put to use etc. However, Assessing Officer itself observed that assessee has intimated Excise Authority regarding loss of materials due to heavy rain and flood in Taloja Factory in July 2005, observing that bills are mostly kept in head office situated at Bombay and the assessee had acquired most of the assets after the date of flood, the Assessing Officer declined to accept the arguments of the assessee that the documentary evidence are not traceable and accordingly, he sustained the disallowance of depreciation. Further, in appeal before ITAT assessee has submitted additional evidences being photocopies of sample invoices placed at Page No. 367-383 of the Paper Book and the same was remitted by ITAT to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the same and allow the claim of the assessee after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
We observe that in the subsequent proceedings Assessing Officer had verified the additional evidences submitted by the assessee and in fact the assessee filed the additional evidences sample invoices only. However, assessee could not file complete details of additions made to fixed assets during the A.Y. 2006-07 before the Assessing Officer. Fairly, Assessing Officer has allowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of bills submitted by the assessee and rejected the claim of the assessee without there being any evidences. We also observe that the Assessing Officer in Assessment Order for the A.Y. 2006-07 has observed that most of the fixed deposits were purchased after date of flood. However, assessee has not submitted anything on record before us that the assessee failed to submit the bills relating to the assets which is purchased by the assessee before the date of flood. The assessee prays that the depreciation may be allowed without there being any evidences on record does not justify. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence or justification we are inclined to accept the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 28.09.2021 for the A.Y.2014-15.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
