2013 (3) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... deleting disallowance, to the tune of Rs.8,73,445/- towards depreciation on building and Rs.20,96,267/- towards interest paid to the bank, as ordered by the Assessing Officer ['the AO'] in the assessment order dated 28.12.2007 relating to the respondentassessee for the assessment year 2005-06. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that essentially the matter relates to appreciation of evidence leading to finding on facts; and no substantial question of law is involved in the case. The facts and the background aspects, so far relevant for the present purpose, could be noticed in the following: The respondent assessee is engaged in the busin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dditions, the AO ultimately assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.77,22,970/- and passed consequential orders. Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dated 28.12.2007, the assessee preferred an appeal that was considered and partly allowed by the CIT(A) in his order dated 24.03.2009. On the aforesaid disallowance towards depreciation and interest, the learned CIT(A) did not agree with the observations made by the AO while, inter alia, observing that the AO did not deal with the basic point as to whether construction of the factory building had been carried out or not. The learned CIT(A) also observed that the AO did not make any physical enquiry to verify the exact condition of the factory building and rather proceeded onl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2,48,660/- claimed for material supply, gitti, cement sand and etc and Rs.75,39,151/- as other material supply. Here also the position is same as discussed on the point of labour payment. The AO has brought nothing on record to show that the appellant has not incurred expenditure on labour payment and for purchase of material. Therefore, the AO was not justified in disallowing depreciation on building. The disallowance is deleted. 14. The sixth ground of appeal relates to disallowance of Rs.20,96,267/- out of interest paid to bank. 15. This ground is consequential to ground No.5 above. Following the discussion made for disallowance of depreciation on building, the AO disallowed the bank interest on the amount not utilized for construc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he name of the party. This is a routine mistake and if somebody writes 'ji' after his name, it does not change the character of transaction. The ld. CIT (A) has considered this aspect minutely and then only has accepted the claim of the assessee. Findings of ld. CIT (A) have been reproduced somewhere above in this order which remained uncontroverted. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of ld. CIT (A). This is also not the case of the department that assessee has shown excessive valuation of the factory building as assessee is not claiming any subsidy. The bank loan has been obtained for the purpose of erecting additional part of the building or purchasing machinery. The same has been purchased and complete vouchers hav....