TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1634
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Assessment Year 2005-06, has raised the following questions of law:- "Whether ld. ITAT is legally justified in deleting disallowances of a part of repair and maintenances expenditure solely for the reasons that the assessee had furnished PAN of venders by ignoring the finding of fact recorded by the AO that neither vendor nor confirmation were produced during the course of assessment proceedings? Whether ld. ITAT is legally justified in deleting disallowance of a part of repair and maintenances expenditure even when the assessee had fail to discharges its initial onus U/s 37(1) of the Act that expenditure was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the assessee?" 2. The Assessing Officer vide assessment or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Depreciation @ 10% is allowed on the amount capitalized. (Addition of Rs. 1,91,75,850 + Rs. 2,36,00,765 + Rs. 19,93,220 =Rs 44769835)" 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 29th August, 2014 reduced the said disallowance from 50% to 5%, following the orders in earlier years. The first appellate authority had also referred to the written submissions of the respondent/assessee to justify and establish that this expenditure was genuine and was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Relevant portion written submissions of the respondent/assessee, as mentioned in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) read as under: "3.1 During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arch 19, 2013) and also requested the Ld. AO that in case he so desires, he may issue notices to the vendors directly and ask their accounts confirmation with the Appellant's accounts. It is most respectfully submitted that, it is not required under any statue to produce the complete list of 400 parties for verification. However, the Ld. AO did not consider the submissions/details placed on record, vendors produced by the Appellant in short span of time and assumed the repair & maintenance expenses as non genuine without any basis or support. The Id. A. O. failed to appreciate the basis of expenditure incurred by the company even after verifying all bills/ supporting documents e.g. job order, receiving reports, transport co. evidence et....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontrary to the facts involved in the instant case." 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had observed that the assessee had filed parawise details of the partly disallowed repair and maintenance expense with names, PAN number as well as the amount paid. The same parties had rendered and performed services in the subsequent years. The repondent-assessee had furnished details of the foreign suppliers/supplies, with copies of bills of lading etc. during the course of assessment proceedings. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had observed that the respondent-assessee had produced all details and particulars during the course of hearing and, therefore, there was no justification not to make disallowance of 50%. However, the respond....