Tribunal allows Assessee's appeals, directs AO to reconsider depreciation claim & grants cross-examination opportunity.

The Tribunal allowed all four appeals filed by the Assessee, directing the AO to reconsider the depreciation claim on tangible assets based on proper verification of purchase bills, payments, and valuation reports, and to grant the Assessee an opportunity for cross-examination of statements recorded during the survey. The issues related to the levy of interest and initiation of penalty were deemed consequential and not separately adjudicated.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on tangible assets.
2. Verification of purchase bills and payment to suppliers.
3. Consideration of further valuation reports.
4. Opportunity for cross-examination of statements recorded during the survey.
5. Levy of interest and initiation of penalty under various sections of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Tangible Assets:
The primary issue in these appeals is the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 9,27,36,250 on tangible assets. The Assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of disallowing depreciation without proper verification. The Tribunal noted that the matter had been remanded previously with specific directions to the AO to reconsider the depreciation claim based on the Dalai Mott MacDonald valuation report and other evidence. The Tribunal found that the AO did not comply with these directions and failed to inspect the machines or consider the valuation report adequately. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on this ground, emphasizing that the depreciation claim should be reconsidered based on the provided evidence and the valuation report.

2. Verification of Purchase Bills and Payment to Suppliers:
The Assessee contended that the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance without verifying purchase bills or payments to suppliers, as directed by the ITAT. The Tribunal observed that the AO had relied on the survey report and statements recorded during the survey without granting the Assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the statements. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO should have verified the purchase bills and payments, and the disallowance could not be justified solely based on the survey report. The Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the depreciation claim after proper verification of the purchase bills and payments.

3. Consideration of Further Valuation Reports:
The Assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not consider further valuation done by Shri Mukesh M Shah, dismissing it as a self-serving document. The Tribunal noted that the valuation report by Dalai Mott MacDonald, which was found during the survey, corroborated the existence of the assets. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have taken cognizance of the valuation report and directed the AO to evaluate the claim of depreciation considering all relevant valuation reports and evidence.

4. Opportunity for Cross-Examination of Statements Recorded During the Survey:
The Assessee claimed that the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance without granting an opportunity to cross-examine the statements recorded during the survey. The Tribunal agreed with the Assessee, stating that unless cross-examination is allowed, the statements cannot be used as evidence against the Assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow cross-examination of the statements and reconsider the depreciation claim accordingly.

5. Levy of Interest and Initiation of Penalty:
The Assessee raised grounds relating to the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act and the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal noted that these issues are consequential and need not be adjudicated separately as the primary issue of depreciation disallowance had been resolved in favor of the Assessee. The Tribunal provided relief to the Assessee, rendering the grounds related to interest and penalty moot.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed all four appeals filed by the Assessee, directing the AO to reconsider the depreciation claim on tangible assets based on proper verification of purchase bills, payments, and valuation reports, and to grant the Assessee an opportunity for cross-examination of statements recorded during the survey. The issues related to the levy of interest and initiation of penalty were deemed consequential and not separately adjudicated.

---