Bombay High Court
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Ushdev International Ltd on 10 January, 2019
Bench: Akil Kureshi, M.S.Sanklecha
itxa-1197-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1197 OF 2016
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
Central-2 .. Appellant.
v/s.
M/s. Ushdev International Ltd., .. Respondent.
Mr. Ashok Kotangle with Ms. Padma Divakar, for the Appellant.
CORAM: AKIL KURESHI &
M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : 10th JANUARY, 2019.
P.C:-
Revenue is in appeal against the Judgment of the Tribunal, raising following questions for our consideration:-
"(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the AO to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.3,76,80,000/- on leased assets though the assessee could not substantiate its claim and also could not substantiate the existence of assets on which such depreciation was claimed?
(b) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the AO to delete the disallowance of depreciation on the leased assets even though the lessees of these assets admitted that such transactions were merely paper transactions?"
2 The Revenue has contested the claim of the assessee of depreciation of Rs.3.76 Crores on the leased assets on the ground that transactions was not genuine. However, by the impugned judgment, the S.R.JOSHI 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2019 02:11:00 ::: itxa-1197-2016 Tribunal discussed the same at some length and noted that the Assessee had produced reliable documentary evidence by making the following observations:-
" Considering the entire facts in totality of he direction of the Tribunal and the subsequent conduct of the Ld. CIT(A) and the AO, in our considered opinion, the Revenue authorities have failed to demonstrate that the claim of depreciation is bogus. Further, the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee have not been rebutted by the Ld. CIT(A). In the light of the decisions discussed herein above, and considering the fact that the matter pertains to A.Y. 1996-97, we failed to persuade ourselves to give one more opportunity to the Revenue as in our opinion that would cause unnecessary hardship on the assessee when the main Director has sine deceased. In the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the impugned addition made on account of the disallowance of depreciation."
3 The entire issue is based on appreciation of facts on record. The findings are purely factual in nature. No question of law arises.
4 Tax Appeal is dismissed.
(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)
S.R.JOSHI 2 of 2
::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2019 02:11:00 :::