TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (8) TMI 641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ier Invoice Date of Value of Machinery Delivery No. Invoice (Rs.) given on SGB(India) Ltd. 115 23.3.91 2,24,700 23.3.91 " " 116 23.3.91 2,24,700 4,49,400 23.3.91 Bajaj Products 206 20.3.91 1,58,860 20.3.91 Bajaj Products 207 22.3.91 1,55,864 22.3.91 Bajaj Products 210 25.3.91 1,61,963 4,76,687 25.3.91 Steel Star Industries 8810 17.3.91 2,42,700 17.3.91 Steel Star Industries 8811 19.3.91 2,75,650 19.3.91 Steel Star Industries 8812 21.3.91 4,54,650 21.3.91 -do- 8813 22.3.91 1,22,450 23.3.91 -do- 8814 26.3.91 1,00,630 11,96,180 26.3.91 21,22,267 3. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for depreciation on the aforesaid material on noticing the following. That the assessee did not carry out any construction activity except maintenance work during the year; that the assessee was unable to give a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer on the direction of the CIT(A), following results were arrived at. Insofar as the inquiry from Executive Engineer, I.G.A.I., Palam was concerned, it was mentioned that they do not have any record of the receipt of shuttering material in the month of March 1991 because the same remained in the custody of the representative of the contractor; that with regard to the two suppliers M/s. S.G.B. (India) Ltd. and M/s. Bajaj Products, CIT(A) accepted that the delivery of the shuttering material had taken place at the site of hirer before the end of the previous year. This was on the basis of invoices, original dispatch notes produced by supplier along with the details of transportation available with the suppliers including the freight paid towards transportation etc. In so far as the third supplier was concerned i.e., M/s. Steel Star Industries, in the absence of any evidence of similar nature, the CIT(A) did not accept the pleas of the assessee. Accordingly, for the purpose of depreciation, the CIT(A) accepted the claim of the purchase and delivery of the shuttering material before the end of the financial year at Rs. 9,26,087 only. The CIT(A) also concluded that the hirer of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e only claim of the appellant firm that supports the purchase and delivery of the shuttering material before 31-3-1991 is the stamp of M/s. Wig Brothers (B&E) Delhi Area Project, which is, however, of no use in view of the other supporting material regarding transportation hire charges which could have been available from the dispatch advise note." 8. Against the aforesaid background, we have heard the rival parties. The basis argument of the counsel for the assessee is that the date of the delivery of the material was given on the back of the invoice and delivery note which was already filed before the Assessing Officer and that the said delivery note also makes a mention regarding the mode of transportation along with the stamp of receipt of goods by M/s. Wig Brothers (B&E) Delhi Area Project. According to the counsel, the said piece of evidence has been accepted by the CIT(A) with regard to the two suppliers while similar piece of evidence has not been accepted with regard to the third supplier M/s. Steel Star Industries while evaluating the claim of the assessee of delivery before the 31st March, 1991. Our attention was drawn to the paper book to submit that the payment to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from M/s. Steel Star Industries. Herein also, at the outset we may state that we do not find any infirmity in the conclusions drawn by the CIT(A) and the assessee has to fail for the reasons discussed hereinafter. From a perusal of the portion of the order of CIT(A) extracted by us in the earlier part of the order, it is clear that the results emerging on account of the enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer at the instance of the CIT(A) in relation to the said transaction is on totally different footing vis-a-vis the purchases made from the other two suppliers. That the assessee could not produce any agreement of purchase as was the case with respect to the other parties; the claim of the delivery taken before 31-3-1991 could not be corroborated on the basis of any independent evidence from the supplier; that the transportation of goods could not be verified in the absence of any dispatch note, freight and transportation expenses etc.; that even the vouchers pertaining to the impugned transaction showed cutting of dates implying antedating; that the mere stamp of the hirer on the invoice raised by the supplier, was not enough to discharge the onus cast on the assessee for pr....