By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, APRIL 24, 2018: THE ISSUE BEFORE THE BENCH IS - Whether decision of the CIT(A) based on the evidences produced by the assessee, on which the AO fails to take a call, can be challenged further. NO IS THE ANSWER.

Facts of the case:

The assessee company carried on the business of manufacturing of power cables, electrical wires, mining cables. It filed the rerun for the AY 2010-11. During the scrutiny proceedings for the AY, the AO observed that the assessee had claimed that the production under Unit II was commenced any time earlier to 30/09/2009. However, the AO noticed that in spite of repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to produce requisite documents supporting its claim and hence, the AO stated that 50% of the depreciation claimed in respect of Unit II was liable to be disallowed. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment by making an additions to the assessee's total income. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of 50% of depreciation made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that,

++ no doubt CIT(A) stated in his order that on a careful consideration of the evidence furnished before him in the shape of copies of the sales invoices for the period between 20/04/2009 to 30/09/2009 along with the copies of the transporter's receipts, nevertheless it is further observed by him that all these documents were available with the AO also. By no stretch of imagination it could be said that the CIT(A) while allowing the additional evidence, made a wrong statement that all these documents were available with the AO also. Nowhere in the order it is stated that the assessee came forward with any additional evidence at the appellate stage;

++ the assessee simply produced the copies of the documents which are already available with the AO, on considering which, while observing that basing on these documents which were available with the AO, the CIT(A) reached their conclusion that Unit-II commenced its operations since 24/08/2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case, on a plain reading of the disputed order we find that this appeal of the Revenue is misconceived one and does not hold any merits. Recording the same, we dismiss the grounds of appeal. In view of dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, cross objection becomes infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.

(See 2018-TIOL-597-ITAT-DEL)