Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Gemini Communication Ltd., Chennai vs Acit Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai on 17 May, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'सी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'C' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं ी इंटूर रामा राव, लेखा सद य केसम%
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1379/Chny/2018
नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year : 2013-14
M/s Gemini Communication Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner of
63/14 Corporation Complex, v. Income Tax,
NSK Salai, Kodambakkam, Corporate Circle 2(1),
Chennai - 600 024. Chennai.
PAN : AAACG 2531 K
(अपीलाथ,/Appellant) (-.यथ,/Respondent)
अपीलाथ, क/ ओर से/Appellant by : None
-.यथ, क/ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
सन
ु वाई क/ तार ख/Date of Hearing : 24.04.2019
घोषणा क/ तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2019
आदे श /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -6, Chennai, dated 30.01.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14.
2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 24.04.2019. The notice of hearing was issued to the assessee by RPAD. The postal authorities returned the notice of hearing with an endorsement "Left". This Tribunal 2 I.T.A. No.1379/Chny/18 has no machinery to trace out the current address of the assessee and serve the notice. Whenever there is a change in the address after filing the appeal before this Tribunal, it is for the assessee to intimate the change by filing a revised Form 36 so that the notice of hearing can be sent to the assessee. Since the change of address was not intimated to the Registry, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee may not be interested in prosecuting the appeal. Whatever may be the reason, this Tribunal is expected to dispose of the appeal on merit. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose the appeal on merit.
3. Shri Sailendra Mamidi, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee claimed addition of fixed asset to the extent of ₹36,72,43,126/-. However, according to the Ld. D.R., no evidence was filed for purchase of so called capital asset. The assessee has filed evidence only to the extent of ₹1,18,24,828/-. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the depreciation claimed on the software, the purchase of which was not established was disallowed to the extent of ₹22,03,45,875/-. According to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) found that for the earlier year, the matter was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee is not eligible for depreciation. Since the purchase itself was not established, 3 I.T.A. No.1379/Chny/18 according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.
4. We heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee claimed purchase of software to the extent of ₹36,72,43,126/- and claimed depreciation treating the same as capital asset. The Assessing Officer found that the evidence produced by the assessee is a fabricated evidence for the purpose of suppressing the profit. The proof of payment was not produced. The Assessing Officer has also observed that the bill produced by the assessee was not clear and complete. The tax invoice produced to the extent of ₹1,18,24,828/- was found to be genuine and the Assessing Officer accepted the same. The balance purchase price was doubted and the depreciation to the extent of ₹22,03,45,875/- was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(Appeals) specifically doubted the purchase and payment of purchase price. It is for the assessee to produce necessary material atleast before this Tribunal which is being the final fact finding authority. No material is available on record for purchase of software. Moreover, the assessee has also chosen not to appear before this Tribunal. In those circumstances, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 4 I.T.A. No.1379/Chny/18
Order pronounced in the court on 17th May, 2019 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
(इंटूर रामा राव) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
(Inturi Rama Rao) (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai,
6दनांक/Dated, the 17th May, 2019.
Kri.
आदे श क/ - त7ल8प अ9े8षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ,/Appellant 2. -.यथ,/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु:त (अपील)/CIT(A)-6, Chennai 4. Principal CIT-2, Chennai
5. 8वभागीय - त न ध/DR 6. गाड( फाईल/GF.