2012 (6) TMI 712

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtains to disallowance of sundry creditors by the Assessing Officer. We may note that some disallowance was also made on account of difference between the amount confirmed by the sundry creditors and the amount appearing in the books of accounts. The respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of carbon parts/ carbon black which is used in the manufacturing of tyre and rubber products. Assessee is a subsidiary of the Continental Carbon Company, Houston, USA. Before the Assessing Officer the assessee had filed confirmations, vouchers and the bills issued by the sundry creditors. However, the Assessing Officer did not receive reply/ confirmation to notices issued under Section 133(6) from all/ some of the sundry credi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he factual matrix of the present case and after examining the mode and manner of payment, TDS certificates, vouchers produced etc., the Tribunal reached the finding that assessee had discharged the burden upon them and the addition under Section 68 of the Act was not justified. In view of the aforesaid factual findings and observations we do not think that the order of the Tribunal calls for interference. 4. In the ITA No.374/2012 which relates to the assessment year 2003-04 one issue raised pertains to prior period expenses of Rs 4,72,452/-. The assessee had received two bills from Continental Carbon Company, Houston, USA in respect of which vouchers dated 31.03.2002 were prepared but the amounts were recorded in the account books next ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the addition." 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid position and also keeping in mind that this Court is not required to go into the said aspect and question which is basically and primarily factual, we decline to interfere.    6. In the appeal filed for the assessment year 2005-06, three other contentions have been raised. The first contention relates to rate and deprecation on computer peripherals. The Tribunal held the depreciation on computer peripherals should be @ 60% and not @ 25% as held by the    Assessing Officer. This Court in several decisions has held that the depreciation on computer peripherals should be allowed @ 60% (see CIT v. BSES Rajdhani Ltd. (ITA 1266/2010). The second issue relates to disallowa....