TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n allowing the deduction claimed u/s. 10A amounting to Rs. 3,80,12,969/- without submitting the Form 56F by the assessee even after sufficient time and opportunity was given to the assessee to furnish the report in Form 56F from an accountant. ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of depreciation of Rs. 16,62,525/- held that depreciation on the assets cannot be disallowed merely because the running bills could not be furnished. iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 6,68,351/- on account of unexplained sundry creditors withou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iately two preceding assessments years, assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act and the assessee was allowed deduction u/s. 10A by the Assessing Officer. Hence, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. 5. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We note that assessee has furnished all the details in support of its claim of deduction u/s. 10A before the Assessing Officer and the only reason given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order for non-allowing of the claim was the non-furnishing of Form 56F. The same Form was admitted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this regard, in order to verify the genuineness of the transactions and submissions of the assessee, notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act were issued to the contractors and Architect. On the basis of statement obtained in this regard, Assessing Officer noted that the Architect has not given any completion certificate to the assessee. Further, Assessing Officer noted that the claim of the assessee that bills raised by the contractor were in possession of Architect and cannot be produced by him, were found in correct. In light of the above, Assessing Officer held that it is established that the property was not ready to put to use on different dates as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the claim of the assessee for depreciation of Rs. 16,62,525/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee has submitted before Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) that assessee has duly submitted the bills before the Assessing Officer. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has accepted this. There is nothing on record to show that these submissions of the assessee were put before the Assessing Officer. Thus we find that in the assessment order, Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has not produced any bill of contractor for construction. However, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has accepted the assessee's submissions that the same were produced during the assessment proceedings. In our considered opinion, interest of justice demands in this case that Assessing Officer be given an opportunity to go through these bills and satisfy hims....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded to the income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. 12. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in this regard noted that the Assessing Officer had required the assessee to provide details of sundry creditors exceeding Rs. 50,000/- but has proceeded to make addition on account of sundry creditors, most of whom are below that amount. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) further observed that not only this, the sundry creditors represent amounts outstanding on account of credit cards, expenses like legal bills, etc. That if the Assessing Officer has accepted such expenses claimed by the assessee in its profit and loss account, he could not have made addition on account of such expenses remaining outstanding at the end of the year. That moreo....