Assessee's appeals dismissed by ITAT for lack of evidence and errors in lower authorities' decisions.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee. The disallowance of prior period expenditure, property tax for Dock Yard Godown, depreciation on new assets, depreciation rate on software, and various expenses based on turnover were all upheld due to lack of substantiating evidence provided by the assessee. The ITAT found no errors in the lower authorities' decisions and dismissed the appeals on all grounds raised by the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of prior period expenditure
2. Disallowance of property tax for Dock Yard Godown
3. Restriction of depreciation claimed on new assets
4. Restriction of depreciation rate on software
5. Disallowance of various expenses based on turnover
6. Failure to consider written submissions
7. Lack of proper opportunity of hearing

Issue 1: Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure
The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs.13,94,716 as prior period expenditure by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the amount was not claimed as an expense in the relevant year but was shown as a current asset in the balance sheet. However, the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance as the assessee failed to provide necessary details to establish the claim that the amount pertained to prepaid expenses during the year under consideration. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Property Tax for Dock Yard Godown
The dispute involved the disallowance of Rs.1,90,302 as property tax for a Dock Yard Godown. The assessee contended that the godown was used for business purposes, but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. The ITAT found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the ground raised by the assessee due to lack of substantiating evidence.

Issue 3: Restriction of Depreciation on New Assets
The assessee contested the restriction of depreciation claimed on new assets and the depreciation rate on software. The ITAT noted discrepancies in the assessee's documentation and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the balance depreciation claimed on new assets and restrict the depreciation rate on software to 25%.

Issue 4: Disallowance of Various Expenses Based on Turnover
The CIT(A) disallowed several expenses, including traveling, conveyance, electricity charges, and manpower deputation charges, as the assessee failed to substantiate that these expenses were incurred for business purposes. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision due to the lack of documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

Issue 5: Failure to Consider Written Submissions
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not consider their written submissions properly. However, the ITAT found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decisions as the assessee failed to provide any additional evidence to support their claims.

Issue 6: Lack of Proper Opportunity of Hearing
The assessee raised concerns about not being given a proper opportunity of hearing before the assessment order was passed. The ITAT noted this as a general ground and did not adjudicate on it.

In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee in both cases, upholding the decisions made by the CIT(A) regarding the various issues raised. The judgment was pronounced on 15.12.2022.

---