2014 (7) TMI 344

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the case and the law applicable thereto. 2. The appellant pray that disallowance made be deleted. 3. The appellant crave your honour's leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing or before. 2. Assessee-company filed its return of income on 30. 09. 2009 declaring income of Rs. 3. 60 lakhs. Assessing Officer(AO)finalised the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 30. 11. 2011, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 37. 14 lakhs. 3. During the assessment proceedings, AO directed the assessee to recalculate its allowance for depreciation in view of the fact that in the earlier Assessment Year, AO had disallowed depreciation of Rs. 3. 10 lakhs. The assessee replied that addition made by the AO ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....30. 8. 2010, the solitary issue raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of Rs. 3, 10, 800/- made by AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) on account of depreciation on building. 7. During the course of search, certain loose papers inventorised as pages 7 to 16 were found and seized from the possession of the assessee showing receipts in cash aggregating Rs. 40, 06, 000/. In the statement recorded during the course of search u/s 132(4) of the Act, the assessee explained that the transactions reflected in the said lose papers as that of sale of scrap of drums, screens, nickel, plastic bags, damaged motors, damaged etc. He also agreed that the said transactions were not recorded in the regular books of account and offered an amount of Rs. 4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....genuineness of the expenses incurred for the addition to the factory building. However, the appellant has failed to submit any evidence to substantiate its claim except the argument that the amount in addition of the building was incurred out of the additional income declared on account of sale of scrap and waste in AY 2007-08. As per the provision of the Income Tax Act to the onus is on the assessee to prove the documentary evidence before the AO before claiming any deduction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Calcutta Agency 19 ITR 119 has held that the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the expenditure before claiming any deduction" We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the issue involved ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccount of assessee's claim for depreciation on additional construction of factory building in MIDC, Dombivili. Although it was indicated in the relevant seized documents that the unaccounted sales proceeds of scrap were partly used for building purposes and the assessee also reiterated this position in his statement recorded under section 132(4), we are of the view that the same by itself was not sufficient to establish that the amount of Rs. 31, 08, 000/- was incurred by the assessee on the construction of additional factory building in MIDC, Dombivili. The onus in this regard was on the assessee to substantiate its claim for the expenditure incurred on the construction of additional building by producing the relevant documentary evidence ....