TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 declaring total income of Rs. 3,18,23,340/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 8-8-2007 declaring loss of Rs. 3,45,58,177/- after claiming deduction on account of doubtful debts written off amounting to Rs. 27,34,828. In the return of income as revised, income of Rs. 27,09,373/- was claimed by the assessee under the head "other income" and after claiming the expenses of Rs. 4,13,01,987/-, loss was claimed by the assessee. The expenses so claimed by the assessee were inclusive of depreciation amounting to Rs. 48,71,812/- and during the course of assessment proceedings, the said claim of the assessee for depreciation was examined by the A.O. On such examination, he found that the assessee company was basically formed for developing and selling software for the banking business and as a result of withdrawal of permission by RBI for its activity, the business of the assessee company was stopped. He also found that the business of the assessee company, however, was subsequently revived as a result of grant of permission by the RBI and the business so revived was continued by the assessee in the subsequent years. According to the A.O., there was thus no business acti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties given, the appellant could not produce the copy of letter of RBI through which permission was given and the copy of letter to which this condition was withdrawn. Hence, the continuity of business for want of this letter is itself not proved by the appellant. Further, the appellant could not produce any evidence it support of its claim that the machinery on which depreciation has been claimed is the same as was claimed that it is carried forward from the earlier years. The A.0 also relied upon several judicial pronouncements which have not been distinguished by the appellant Further, the case Laws relied upon by the appellant are based on different set of facts as compared to the facts in appellant's case. In view of the facts and legal position as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the A0 has rightly disallowed the depreciation claimed by the appellant which is upheld." Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In support of the assessee's case on the issue, the ld. counsel for the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration. The ld. D.R. has not raised any objection for admission of the said additional evidence. He, however, has contended that the contention of the assessee of having received the permission from RBI to carry on its business activity on 23-2-2006 based on the said additional evidence requires verification and the matter may be sent back to the A.O. for such verification. We find merit in the contention of the ld. D.R. and since the ld. counsel for the assessee also no objection in this regard, we restore this issue to the file of the A.O. with a direction to verify the stand of the assessee of having received the required permission from RBI to revive its business activity in the light of additional evidence filed by the assessee and decide the issue relating to the assessee's claim for depreciation in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In its appeal for A.Y. 2007-08, the only issue raised by the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs. 29,65,122/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of prior period expenses. 7. In the return of income filed for A.Y. 2007....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tated that the process of debonding of export obligation was going on with the customs authorities. It was also submitted that as per agreement dated 27.03.2000 entered by the company, it had minimum export obligation of US Dollar 0.25 million till 31.03.2006 to be completed in 5 years. However, in the agreement copy which has been produced nothing of such sort is mentioned. In fact, Para 4 of this agreement provides for imposition of liquidated damages by Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology in case of non fulfillment of export obligations. No such order could be produced by appellant to justify its claim. Further, the appellant admitted that the demand raised by customs and excise authorities relate to the earlier years. Thus, liability to pay arose in A.Y. 2006-2007 i.e. the period when appellant failed to discharge its export obligation. In view of these facts, agree with the A.O. that the amounts which had not been disallowed earlier cannot be claimed as deduction u/s 43B now. Further since the expenditure are doesn't relate to the year under consideration as per matching concept same could not he allowable as deduction in the current year. In view of these facts and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lable on record. In the paper book filed before us, the assessee has filed a copy of letter filed before the ld. CIT(A) along with the documents annexed thereto at page 3 to 38 of his paper book. As submitted in the letter, the assessee was registered as 100% export oriented unit under STPI and accordingly it was allowed to import and buy indigenous machinery without payment of customs and excise duty respectively. The assessee was required to be used the said machinery for export turnover only and it had to fulfill certain export obligation. As further submitted in the said letter, the assessee, however, could not fulfill the export obligation and hence intended to de-bond the same for utilization of the same for local turnover purpose. For this purpose, the assessee was required to pay customs and excise duty for the machinery and although the assessee initiated the process of de-bonding in the earlier year, the first demand for custom and excise duty was raised by the excise authorities only on 19-4-2006. As per the said demand, the custom and excise duty aggregating to Rs. 29,65,122/- was paid by the assessee under two challans dtd. 28-4-2006. It appears from these submissions ....