TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly. 2. When these appeals were called for hearing, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. On a perusal of the record, we noticed that these appeals were listed on 7 previous occasions and no one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. Therefore, we proceed to dispose off these appeals ex-parte qua the assessee, after hearing the learned Departmental Representative ("learned DR") and on the basis of material available on record. 3. Since both these appeals pertained to the same assessee and the issue involved is also common, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. Further, as the basic facts in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rent state, while assessee's plant is based in Gujarat. Instead of buying products from same state, assessee preferred to buy products from a place at a distance of around 650 Km. Yet there are no delivery challans for delivery of the product 2. The products are all same, i.e. SS Pipes/Tubes. Assessee was asked to justify as to for purpose these were used. Assessee stated that old tubes were rusted and hence these new tubes were purchased. Hence, assessee was asked to give details of labor charges and other material used for fitting these pipes/tubes. Assessee stated that replacement of pipes was done by the internal staff only. It is surprising that such technical work could be done by the internal staff only. 3. Assessee has also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry to siphon of black money. Further, in the absence of details as to when the said stainless steel pipes / tubes were put to use by the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act disallowed the claim of depreciation. 7. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order for the assessment year 2014-15, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee observing as under:- "4.4.1 I have considered the rival contentions. The appellant has claimed that it had purchased SS pipes/tubes and replaced existing pipes in the factory. The appellant has added to the WDV of fixed assets a sum of Rs. 3,46,28,880/- which the appellant claimed was cost of the pipes/tubes. The AO has rejected the appellant's claim and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellate proceedings, the appellant was to furnish details of sale of scrap generated by the purported replacement of the pipes by the new pipes as claimed. In reply the appellant submitted as under: "... 3. With regard to realisation or re-use of rusted or damaged pipes, we would like to state that those pipes are heavily damaged and strap of the same are non-usable and kept at the plant only. The value of the scrap is very meagre and the appellant has never shown any scrap during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2014-15. Considering facts of the case, your honour will find that the asset is negligible value and the rusted pipes are kept with the appellant company only." 4.4.4 I have considered the contentions of the ....