Tribunal Partially Allows Appeal: Depreciation on Wind Turbine & Agriculture Purchases Accepted, Loading Charges Disallowed

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, directing the deletion of disallowances concerning depreciation on the wind turbine, shortage in fruits and vegetables, and cash purchases from agriculturists. However, it upheld the disallowance of loading and unloading charges.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on the cost of foundation and installation of a Wind Turbine.
2. Addition on account of shortage in fruits and vegetables.
3. Ad-hoc addition for cash purchases from agriculturists.
4. Ad-hoc disallowance of loading and unloading charges.
5. Disallowance of expenses on account of alleged personal use.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Wind Turbine:
The assessee claimed depreciation at 80% on the windmill project, including civil work and installation costs. The Assessing Officer (AO) allowed depreciation at lower rates (10% for civil work and 15% for installation), disallowing Rs. 16,21,886/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this disallowance. However, the Tribunal found that the issue was covered in the assessee’s favor by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench for the previous assessment year (2008-09). The Tribunal, relying on similar cases, held that the civil work and installation costs are integral to the windmill and should attract the same depreciation rate of 80%. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant depreciation at 80%, allowing the assessee’s grounds.

2. Addition on Account of Shortage in Fruits and Vegetables:
The AO noted a shortage of 1,01,678 kgs of fruits and vegetables, disallowing 50% of the claimed shortage (Rs. 15,01,088/-) due to lack of documentary evidence. The CIT(A) upheld this decision. The Tribunal, however, observed that the assessee’s business involves perishable goods, and similar shortages had been accepted in previous years. The Tribunal found no evidence that the shortage was sold without being recorded in the books. It directed the deletion of the disallowance, allowing the assessee’s ground.

3. Ad-hoc Addition for Cash Purchases from Agriculturists:
The AO made an ad-hoc addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- due to cash payments to crop growers, despite their bank accounts. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The Tribunal noted that the suppliers confirmed the sales and receipt of cash payments. It found the disallowance unjustified, especially since cash payments for agricultural commodities are permissible under Rule 6DD(e) of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal set aside the disallowance, allowing the assessee’s ground.

4. Ad-hoc Disallowance of Loading and Unloading Charges:
The AO disallowed Rs. 75,000/- out of Rs. 18,95,356/- claimed as loading and unloading charges, citing unverifiable self-made vouchers. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal found no material to controvert the AO’s findings and upheld the disallowance, dismissing the assessee’s ground.

5. Disallowance of Expenses on Account of Alleged Personal Use:
The AO disallowed 10% (Rs. 1,09,804/-) of administrative expenses, suspecting personal use by directors and family members. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal, referencing its decision for the previous year (2008-09), noted that a company, being a juristic person, cannot have personal expenses. It directed the deletion of the disallowance, allowing the assessee’s ground.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the deletion of disallowances related to depreciation on the wind turbine, shortage in fruits and vegetables, and cash purchases from agriculturists, while upholding the disallowance of loading and unloading charges.

---