TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious dates to the assessee. This appeal was originally fixed on 05/03/2015. Vide letter dated 03/03/2015, the assessee sought adjournment on the ground that the assessee is in the process of collecting some additional data. On the request of the assessee, the appeal was fixed for hearing on 11/05/2015. The appeal was further adjourned to 30/06/2015. On 30/06/2015, yet again, the assessee requested for adjournment on the ground that the Authorized Representative of the assessee-company was out of station. The appeal was adjourned on 12/08/2015. Another application was filed on the date fixed, i.e. on 12/08/2015 seeking adjournment on behalf of the assesseecompany. On the last date of hearing, an opportunity was granted and the appeal was adjourned to 05/10/2015. On the date fixed for hearing, neither any person appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. From the record, it is evident that the assessee has been given sufficient opportunity to represent its case. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal in the absence of the appellant-assessee on the basis of material available on record. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dabad. In compliance with the requirements of the said letter, it has been stated that the said company purchased six wind mills from Indowind Energy Limited, out of which 4 were capitalized and the remaining two wind mills were sold by it, one of which is sold to the assessee company. In support, it has submitted a copy of the invoice with respect to purchase of wind mill by it from Indowind Energy Limited. As regards, the sale of windmill by it to the assessee, the said party has submitted a copy of invoice wherein, the assessee's name appears as consignee of the windmill. On verifying the first invoice of purchase by India Wind Power Limited, it is noticed that there is a clear mention therein under 'Terms and Conditions' that till the full and final payment is received by it income out of power generation will be in the hands of the seller, i.e. Indowind Energy Limited, in this case. Since the assessee is shown as a consignee of the same transaction, the terms and condition of the initial invoice will naturally be applicable on the assessee also. IV. As discussed at II, above, as per the balance-sheet of the assessee, the assessee has not made full payment towards the w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of wind mill, ii) full payment has not been made and also iii) there is no credible evidence of generation of power from the wind mill as claimed by it. Therefore the depreciation of Rs. 32,00,000/- claimed by the assessee company is disallowed. Disallowance of depreciation : Rs. 32,00,000/-" 5.1. From the above finding of the AO, it is clear that the assessee had not paid the entire sale consideration. As per the report, submitted by the assessee, of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Generation, M/s.RPG Cables Ltd. shown as the Incharge of the Wind Farm. The ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the finding of the AO, by observing as under:- "3.3 I have considered the facts of the case; assessment order and appellant's submission. The basic fact is that appellant claimed to have purchased a windmill from a company who in turn purchased six windmills from another company who purchased the same from RPG cables Ltd who was the power producer as per records of Karnataka Power transmission Corporation. In the records of Karnataka Power transmission Corporation, six windmills claimed to have been purchased by India wind power Ltd and in turn sold to another company befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of Tamil Nadu civil supplies Corporation Ltd discussed earlier in the decision of jurisdictional tribunal, this decision does not help the appellant. Considering the facts of the case I'm of the clear view that appellant did not acquire Dominion or control over the windmill and it was not a legal owner of the same and accordingly not entitled to claim depreciation. The claim is accordingly rejected by the AO and hence the disallowance is confirmed." 5.2. From the above finding of the ld.CIT(A), it is evident that the ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.502/Ahd/2005 for AY 2001-02 in the case of Besto Tradelink Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT, dated 23/10/2009, had held as under:- "14. After hearing both the sides, we have carefully gone through the orders of authorities below as well as various details and documents submitted before us. From the perusal of MOU, it is clear that as per clause (d), the assessee-company was required to apply to appropriate authority on or before 31st May, 2000. The assessee (as per MOU) assured the second party (M/s. Pearl Energy & Infrastructure) to arrange for necessary transfer within a period o....