TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 690
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... common issue in dispute is involved in these appeals, therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA No. 3342/M/2023 are reproduced as under: 1. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made of depreciation claim Rs. 6,94,43,326/- admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A even though the assessee has not fulfilled the following conditions under Rule 46A: a. Where the [Assessing Officer] has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or b. Where the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of ports and providing port services. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 28.03.2013 , total loss was determined at Rs. 2,67,37,780/-. In the assessment, the Assessing Officer made disallowance firstly, of Rs. 6,94,43,326/- for depreciation @ 5% on the bills which were not produced during the assessment proceedings amounting to Rs. 138,88,66,528/- and secondly , disallowance of Rs. 63,16,668/- for the income out of trial run not shown in the profit and loss account. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 5. As far as ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the same is found correct and acceptable. But without specifying any reasons the AO has requested the CIT( appeals) not to give relief to the assessee based on the additional evidences submitted. This sounds illogical where as one side is accepting the correctness of the evidences and at the same time requesting not to give relief. From the remand report submitted by the AO it can be clearly understood that the AO has accepted the correctness of the claim and no negative inference was drawn and hence disallowance of Rs. 6,94,43,326/- being 5% of the capitalisation amount is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and hence the, same is deleted. Ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed." 6. We have heard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) records in writing the reasons for its admission. (3) The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed a reasonable opportunity- (a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witness produced by the appellant, or (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant. (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that assessee has earned total birth hire income of Rs. 1,28,57,298/-, out of income of Rs. 63,16,688/- was earned during the course of the trial run and which was adjusted against trial run expenditure or netted against entire cost of fixed assets/capital work in progress. But according to the Assessing Officer this income of Rs. 63,16,688/- was not reflected in the profit and loss account and therefore, he added to the returned income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition holding that the birth hire charges during the trial run operation to the tune of Rs. 63,16,688/- has already been offered by the assessee. We agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue relates to deleting the 10% of the disallowance made out of total CSR expenses. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced as under: "Ground No. 2: This ground pertain to adhoc disallowance of Rs. 4,57,884/- which is 10% of the CSR expenses claimed by the assessee during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer in his order while making disallowance at the rate of 10% has stated that it is not possible to ascertain whether entire amount of Rs. 45,78,842/- has been expanded towards Corporate Social Responsibility expenses, of the assessee company and further has stated that this disallowance is being made following the stand taken for AY 2011-....