2015 (7) TMI 1218 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns depreciation disallowance, citing procedural flaws and lack of evidence examination.

M/s. Ushdev International Ltd. Versus The JCIT, Spl. Range-53, Mumbai

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance of the assessee's depreciation claim on leased assets. It found a violation of ... Disallowance of depreciation - ingenuity of claim - Held that:- Revenue authorities have failed to demonstrate that the claim of depreciation is bogus. Further, the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee have not been rebutted by the Ld. CIT(A). In the light of the above we failed to persuade ourselves to give one more opportunity to the Revenue as in our opinion that would cause unnecessary hardship on the assessee when the main Director has since deceased. In the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the impugned addition made on account of the disallowance of depreciation. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the assessee's claim for 100% depreciation on leased assets.2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by not providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses.3. Whether the documentary evidence provided by the assessee was sufficient to substantiate the claim of genuine lease transactions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Depreciation Claim:The assessee challenged the correctness of the CIT(A)'s order, which confirmed the disallowance of the depreciation claim on leased assets. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed the claim based on inquiries revealing that the lease transactions with Madras Oxygen & Acetylene Ltd. and Protech Circuit Breakers Ltd. were merely paper transactions. The AO's disallowance amounted to Rs. 91.80 lakhs and Rs. 2.85 crores respectively. The Tribunal had previously remanded the case to the CIT(A) with instructions to allow cross-examination of key witnesses to verify the genuineness of the transactions.2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) and the AO failed to provide the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination of Mr. D. Shiramalu and Mr. D.K. Sanghvi, which was crucial for determining the authenticity of the lease transactions. The Tribunal had emphasized that the burden of proof was on the assessee to show that the assets were purchased and leased out, and that the transactions were not merely on paper. The CIT(A) was directed to ensure proper cross-examination, but the efforts to facilitate this were inadequate. Mr. Shiramalu cited health reasons for not appearing, and Mr. Sanghvi was untraceable, which the AO did not pursue further.3. Sufficiency of Documentary Evidence:The assessee provided extensive documentation to support the lease transactions, including certificates from Chartered Engineers, Chartered Accountants, letters from lessees, insurance policies, and delivery notes. However, the CIT(A) dismissed these documents without adequate examination, relying instead on the statements obtained during the investigation. The Tribunal criticized the CIT(A) for not following its directions in letter and spirit and for not considering the documentary evidence properly. The Tribunal highlighted that the revenue authorities failed to demonstrate that the depreciation claim was bogus and that the documentary evidence was not rebutted effectively.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) and AO did not adhere to the principles of natural justice by failing to facilitate cross-examination of key witnesses. The documentary evidence provided by the assessee was not adequately considered. Given the prolonged nature of the case and the death of the main director, the Tribunal decided not to remand the case again. Instead, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the disallowance of depreciation, thereby allowing the assessee's appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of following procedural fairness and thoroughly examining all evidence before making a determination.