IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD Before Shri S.S. Godara, JM, & Shri Manish Borad, AM. ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 Asst. Year: 2006-07 Shri Maruti Pole Industries, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Baroda. At & PO: Masar, Tal. Padra, Dist. Baroda. Appellant Respondent PAN ABBFS 8324D Appellant by Shri M. K. Patel, AR Respondent by Shri S. L. Chandel, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 9/9/2016 Date of pronouncement: 20/9/2016 ORDER PER Manish Borad, Accountant Member. assessee is in appeal for Asst. Year 2006-07 against order of ld. CIT(A)-II, Baroda, dated 22.12.2010, vide appeal no.CAB/II-322/08-09. Assessment u/s 144 of IT Act, 1961 was framed on 18/12/2008 by ITO Ward-3(2), Baroda. Assessee has raised following grounds :- 1. Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in disregarding remand report of Assessing Officer dated 12.3,2010 in which he had accepted books of account and had categorically accepted Net Profit disclosed by appellant firm. 2. Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming estimation of Net Profit at 8% and further erred in confirming profit estimation made by Assessing Officer ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 2 Asst. Year 2006-07 disregarding Remand report as well as without attending any opportunity to applicant. 3. Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs.5,68,000/- u/s 68 of Act despite fact that Learned Assessing Officer had accepted cash credits as genuine in remand report. 4. Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming addition on account of disallowance of depreciation. 5. Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance u/s 41 (1) of Act. 6. Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance u/s 41 (1) in respect of creditors : Sureshchandra Hiralal Mali- Rs.48200 Rachodlal S Parmar - Rs.39300 despite confirmation filed by him. 7. appellant firm craves, leave to add, alter or amend any of grounds mentioned above. 2. Briefly stated facts are that assessee being partnership firm engaged in business of manufacturing cement poles filed its return of income on 20/11/2006 declaring Rs.NIL along with audit report u/s 44AB in form no.3CB and 3CD with financial statements. Case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of Act were issued and duly served. None attended on behalf of assessee on dates given by Assessing Officer and as result assessment was completed u/s 144 of Act at Rs.47,81,620/- after estimating net profit @ 8% at Rs.10,79,683/-, addition u/s 68 on account of unaccounted cash credit at Rs.28,21,022/-, disallowance of depreciation at Rs.90,730/- and addition u/s 69 for unaccounted investment on accont of liabilities at Rs.7,90,180/-. ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 3 Asst. Year 2006-07 3. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A) who called for remand report from Assessing Officer. Remand report dated 8.2.2010 was placed on record before ld. CIT(A) and after considering same appeal of assessee was partly allowed. 4. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before Tribunal. Assessee has raised 7 grounds of appeal but they can be summarized in three grounds assailing order of ld. CIT(A) (i) against rejection of books of account by applying net profit rate @ 8% , (ii) sustaining addition u/s 68 at Rs.5,68,000/- towards unexplained cash credit and (iii) confirming disallowance u/s 41(1) of Act at Rs.87,500/-. 5. Ld. AR submitted that when ld. CIT(A) called for remand report extensive investigation was carried out by ld. Assessing Officer who called for all necessary information which were duly complied by assessee and remand report is speaking in all aspects and if one takes overall view of remand report, three impugned additions sustained by ld. CIT(A), need to be deleted, as assessee has produced audited books of accounts, gave complete details including bank account and identities of cash creditors. 6. On other hand, ld. DR supported orders of lower authorities. 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused material placed before us. Through this appeal assessee has raised three grounds against order of ld. CIT(A) ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 4 Asst. Year 2006-07 (i) against rejection of books of account by applying net profit rate @ 8%; (ii) sustaining addition u/s 68 at Rs.5,68,000/- towards unexplained cash credit; & (iii) confirming disallowance u/s 41(1) of Act at Rs.87,500/-. (iv) disallowance of depreciation. 8. We observe that assessment was completed u/s 144 of Act due to non-appearance of assessee even when audited financial statements and other necessary details were available with ld. Assessing Officer as can be viewed from impugned assessment order. We further observe that ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from Assessing Officer against impugned additions made by ld. Assessing Officer in assessment framed u/s 144 of Act. It will be relevant here to produce remand report given by Assessing Officer in order to adjudicate all grounds raised by assessee :- OFFICE OF TH INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)& 3(1) 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Circle, Baroda No. BRD./Wd.3(l) &3(2)/09-10 Dt 8/12-03-2010 Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II BARODA (Submitted through proper channel) Madam, Sub; Appellate proceedings in case of Shri Maruti Pole industries - A.Y. 2006-07- Appeal No. CAB/ll-322/08-09 -: Report regarding - Ref; Your letter No. BRD/C!T(A)-ll/Rem.Rep/2009-10, dt.1.12.2009 Kindly refer to above. My point-wise report on submission/evidence produced by assessee is .submitted hereunder; 2.1 First of all additional evidences now produced before your honour may not be allowed as same were, not produced during course of assessment proceedings inspite of sufficient opportunities provided to assessee, . ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 5 Asst. Year 2006-07 3 As per assessment order assessee was provided sufficient opportunities to present his case but non-attendance and non-production of details, compelled Assessing officer to frame assessment ex-party. assessee has not produced details of expenditure nor other evidences in respect of sources of Income, bOOKS of account of assessee .had been rejected u/s 145(3) of IT Act estimating net profit of assessee at 8% .of total turnover i.e. Rs.10,79,683/-. assessee has produced audited books of accounts along with supporting documents for verification. books of accounts produced are taste checked. This is first year of business therefore GP/NP of earlier years are not available for comparison. During year GP is shown at Rs.19,03,869/- which works out to 13.80%. 4 Regarding unexplained cash credits u/s 63 of IT Act, letters to depositors have been issued and from date made available, case-wise report is submitted as under; Sl. Name of Amount Mode of Document Remarks No. depositors introduced in transaction produced by Rs. assessee in paper book 1 Chandresh R. 4,64,000 DD Confirmation & PAN AKTPB5917G "Op. Bhadresh No.548481, Ledger Bal. Rs. 2,75,000/- credit 507712,674 account during year by DD Rs. 647 4,64,000/- on three dates. Rs.64,000, depositor has Rs. 1 lac, & furnished confirmation, Rs.3 lakh bank account copy and for land holding 8A/ 7- 12copies.On verification thereof, identity, genuineness & credit worthiness satisfied.. 2 Jayanti I. 430000 DD Confirmation & Opening balance Rs Bhadresh No.675645 ledger account 1,00,000 and addition Rs.2 lacs made; by DD of Rs. 2,lac DD and 2.30 lac during Rs.2,30,00 year. Confirmation from 0 SBS depositor is filed. amount of deposit is withdrawn from another firm M/s Mahavir construction on Rajkot and Sheth Construction co. Dboraji from where out of credit balance, amount has been withdrawn and deposited with assessee. He has also filed land holding uttara, Dena bank account copies. On verification thereof, identity, genuineness & credit worthiness satisfied 3 Lalitbhai R 50000 Cheque Confirmation & PAN AEBPB6609M -The Bhadresh 222454 ledger account depositor is assessed to ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 6 Asst. Year 2006-07 SBS tax with ITO 10(2) Rs.50000 Ahmedabad. depositor has fifed, acknowledgement copy of return filed, land holding documents i.e. 8A/7--12 copies, bank of Saurashtra account copy. Is deposits have been made by. cheques. On verification thereof; identity, genuineness & credit worthiness is proved. 4 Manilal Oldbal Old Balanace No comment L.Bhadresh 5 Mohanlal L. -of bal No comment Bhadresh 6 Mukeshbhai 98,600 DD Confirmation & PAN BFFPS5115 D Solanki No.547500 ledger account depositor is assessed to Dena Bank tax. Confirmation copy of Rs.48000/- Dena bank account have DD been filed On verification No.127743 thereof identity. UBI genuineness & credit Rs.49800 worthiness satisfied.. 7 Pithabhai 200000 DD Dena Confirmation & Received copies of Vasra bank Rs.2 lacs Denabank account, land No.74745 holding documents 8A/7- 12 uttara have been filed. On verification thereof identity, genuineness & creditworthiness is satisfied. 8 Pushpaben B 750000 DD Confirmation & PAN AJBPB9444P Bhadresh No.74798, Ledger depositor is assessed to Dena Bank account tax. There is opening balance of Rs.3,50,000 and addition is made by DD She has withdrawn amount from Mahavir Construction Rajkot where there credit balance of Rs.10.80 lacs On verification thereof identity genuineness & credit worthiness satisfied. 9 Rameshbhai 50000 Cheque Confirmation & PAN AEBPB 6608L Bhadresha No.224584 ledger account depositor is assessed to tax with ITO Wd 10(4) Ahmedabad. depositor has filed bank account copy and confirmed deposits. transaction is found genuine. ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 7 Asst. Year 2006-07 10 Ratilal N No diff Bhadresha 11 Shantilal 70000 Cheque Confirmation & depositor has Vajibhai No.622481 ledger account furnished bank account BOB copy in support of cheque Rs.70,000 issued. transaction by bank cheque, it is accepted as genuine. 12 Sun Carting 59622 Purchase Ledger Copy of ledger account Padra material account filed Sun carting It is bal. enclosed creditor for services Copy of contra account is filed. 13 Alpesh Solanki 49000 DD UBI Confirmation, depositor has No.01747 ledger account responded 133(6) letter dt.30.1.08 no. PAN and he has furnished copy of Union Bank Dhoraji from where DD has been issued. transaction is genuine. 14 Amrutlal 200000 DD Dena Confirmation, Confirmation from Laljibhai Bank ledger account depositor is received and Bhadresha No.5650 has furnished land holding Rs.2 lacs documents 8-A/7-12 which is in joint name with Rameshbhai. depositor is agriculturist. transaction is genuine. 15 Amrutlal V. 150000 DD Ledger PAN ABUPG9635Q gohel No.507713 account & depositor is assessed to SBS confirmation tax and has complied to Rs.3.50 filed letter u/s 133(6) and lacs & DD stated that amount is No.177987 received by back upto BOB Rs. 2 7.11.09 by DD Copy of lacs bank account showing withdrawal and deposits have been verified. deposit is genuine 16 Bhanuprasad 200000 DD Confirmation & PAN AAAAJ 1443R in M Joshi No.263263 ledger account compliance to letter by Dena bank this office, depositor Rs.2 lac has filed SB account of Denabank and also stated that he has received amount on retirement from company which is credited at bank account by cheque. In view of above, transaction is genuine. 17 Bhupatbhai 49800 DD Confirmation & depositor has filed Solanki No.022747 ledger account confirmation and copy of UBI bank account. He has Rs.49800 stated that amount ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 8 Asst. Year 2006-07 was withdrawn from bank account Rs.50,000 on 28.1.06 and given cash of Rs.49800 to firm and said amount is received back by him on 3.4.07. deposit is genuine. 3 Disallowance of Depreciation Rs. 90730- Factory Bldg. assessee has made addition of Rs. 53,579 10% thereof Rs. 5358 is disallowed, in this connection assessee has filed Factory building ledger account but has filed only one bill copy of Rs. 729 for verification .For rest of addition no supporting evidences are produced. Machinery ; Addition of Rs. 5,40,330 @ 15% Rs. S5372/- = 90730. assessee was called upon to produce bills & supporting evidence. assessee has filed/produced bills of Rs. 2,90,183 for verification. For rest of amount i.e. Rs. 2,50,147 no supporting bills are produced.. 4. Current liabilities: assessee has shown sundry creditors under head current liabilities. Letters to creditors have been issued and in following cases replies have been received. 1. Ambica steel ; Rs. 18,700 Nature of transaction; Confirmation is received, . assessed to tax at ABNXPP3055C, 2 Binani Cement Ltd.; Rs. 34328 Nature of transaction; material purchase, Confirmation & copy of account is furnished. 3 D.P. Wire pvt.ltd., Rs. 1,54,036; Transaction -material purchase. Confirmation is received PAH AABCD2393P assessed at 6(2) Bombay. 4 Krishna sales Rs. 1,49,800; material purchase - ledger account copy by Krishna sale is filed. 5. Prestress Wire Inds. Rs 3,27,932 Assessed to tax at PAN AAAFP560/C ledger account copy in response to letter u/s 133(6) is furnished. Prestress wire ind. 3,27,932 6. Ranchhodlal S Parmar Rs 48,200; on cross verification, one letter is filed stating that amount is outstanding. assessee has furnished ledger account copy but no supporting evidence filed 7. Ratlam Wire pvt.itd. Rs, 8000; Transaction material purchase. Assessee to tax PAN AABCR8178G copy of ledger account is filed. It is running account, 8. Morar stone supplier Rs 15,875; material purchase. Confirmation of account is filed. Assessed to tx at PAN AADFM2064R. 9. Suresh Hiralal Mali Rs 39,300; Simple letter is filed by assessee but no supporting bills or work done is furnished till date. ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 9 Asst. Year 2006-07 10 Sun Transport Rs -5991 It is running account for transportation of goods, ledger account copy is filed. Submitted, Yours faithfully, Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2} Baroda. 9. Now we proceed ahead to adjudicate grounds in light of remand report dated 8/12-03-2010 taking first ground wherein books of account were rejected and profit was estimated @ 8%. Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed addition for estimation of net pfotit @ 8% by observing as under :- 2.3. I have considered submissions of learned Authorized Representative and order of Assessing Officer. In this case order u/s. 144 of Incc;ne-t6x Act has been passed as there was sustained non-compliance on- part of assessee. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that appellant was carrying out works at difference places and therefore there was reasonable cause for non-compliance to notices of Assessing Officer. This contention has to be rejected at out set. appellant's carrying out business at difference places cannot be justification of non-compliance. Because carrying of business is sine quanon for filing of return and compliance to statutory notices. practice of business cannot be reason for non-compliance. Moreover, as can be seen from assessment order first notice was issued on 20.08.2007 and last notice was issued on 06.11.2008 spreading over more than year. And during period of more than one year appellant could not appear even once before Assessing Officer. On facts of appellant's case it is held that order u/s. 144 has been passed correctly. Having said that, additional evidence filed during course of appellate proceedings were sent to Assessing Officer and successor Assessing Officer has furnished written submissions. Coming to first ground of appeal against estimation of profit at 8%, appellant's objection has been noted as above. During remand proceeding books of accounts were produced before Assessing Officer. However, there are several issues which justified rejection of books of account. appellant had not produced books of accounts etc. during course of assessment proceedings and best judgment assessment u/s. 144 has been upheld as proper. Even during course of remand proceedings there are several entries in Books were not found reliable. It has been noted by Assessing Officer in Remand Report that in respect of addition to factory building that entries in books of accounts are not supported ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 10 Asst. Year 2006-07 by supporting documents. Similarly, in respect of addition to plant and machinery amounting to Rs.5,40,330/- during year, entries in respect of amount of Rs.2,50,147 has not supported by bills and vouchers. Even during remand report there were not produced. Similarly, in respect of current liabilities no supporting evidence in respect of amount of Rs.48,200/- in name of Ranchhodla! S. Parmar, for amount of Rs,39,300/- in name of Suresh Hiralal Mali were produced even during course of remand proceedings. Copies of bills were subsequently filed in respect of above before undersigned subsequent to Remand Report. However, apart from facts these bills and vouchers cannot be admitted as there were neither filed during course of assessment proceedings nor during course of remand proceedings and there is no justification offered for same. No respectability is attached to these vouchers filed at this stage particularly when payments are paid in cash in respect of these bills. Looking into these facts it is to be held that books of accounts are not reliable and therefore rejection of same is upheld. Similarly, estimating net profit @ 8% is also as proper on facts and case.The first ground is therefore rejected. 10. We observe that assessee has produced audited books of account along with supporting documents for verification and same were test checked. Assessment being of first year there was no possibility of GP/NP rate of earlier years for purpose of comparison and GP for year under appeal was shown at Rs.13.80%. We further observe that there is no major defect has been noted by Assessing Officer in his remand report and clear indication is available that assessee s books of account are audited, financial statements were available for verification, no adverse observation has been made by auditors and no defect has been pointed. We are, therefore, of view that ld. Assessing Officer was not correct in rejecting books of account u/s 145(3) of Act and estimating profit @ 8% and further being confirmed by ld. CIT(A). We delete impugned addition of Rs.10,79,683/- being 8% of Rs.1,34,96,043/-. This ground of assessee is allowed. ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 11 Asst. Year 2006-07 11. Now we take up ground relating to addition u/s 68 at Rs.5,68,000/- towards unexplained cash credit sustained by ld. CIT(A). 12. Ld. AR relied heavily on remand report of Assessing Officer which clarifies facts. 13. On other hand, ld. DR supported orders of lower authorities. 14. We have heard rival contentions and perused material on record. We find that impugned addition of Rs.5,68,000/- towards unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of Act has been sustained by ld. CIT(A) in respect of following parties :- 1. Pithabhai Vasra Rs.2,00,000/- 2. Shantilal Vajibhai Rs. 70,000/- 3. Alphesh Solanki Rs. 49,000/- 4. Amrutlal Laljibhai Bhadresha Rs.2,00,000/- 5. Bhupatbhai Solanki Rs. 49,000/- ------------------------------ Rs.5,68,000/- ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 12 Asst. Year 2006-07 15. Further on examining remand report, we find with reference to above 5 cash creditors that ld. Assessing Officer has given specific finding in relation to each of them. observations of ld. Assessing Officer are reproduced below :- Sl. Name of Amount Mode of Document Remarks No. depositors introduced in transaction produced by Rs. assessee in paper book 1 Pithabhai 200000 DD Dena Confirmation & Received copies of Vasra bank Rs.2 lacs Denabank account, land No.74745 holding documents 8A/7- 12 uttara have been filed. On verification thereof identity, genuineness & creditworthiness is satisfied. 2. Shantilal 70000 Cheque Confirmation & depositor has Vajibhai No.622481 ledger account furnished bank account BOB copy in support of cheque Rs.70,000 issued. transaction by bank cheque, it is accepted as genuine. 3. Alpesh Solanki 49000 DD UBI Confirmation, depositor has No.01747 ledger account responded 133(6) letter dt.30.1.08 no. PAN and he has furnished copy of Union Bank Dhoraji from where DD has been issued. transaction is genuine. 4. Amrutlal 200000 DD Dena Confirmation, Confirmation from Laljibhai Bank ledger account depositor is received and Bhadresha No.5650 has furnished land holding Rs.2 lacs documents 8-A/7-12 which is in joint name with Rameshbhai. depositor is agriculturist. transaction is genuine. 5. Bhupatbhai 49800 DD Confirmation & depositor has filed Solanki No.022747 ledger account confirmation and copy of UBI bank account. He has Rs.49800 stated that amount was withdrawn from bank account Rs.50,000 on 28.1.06 and given cash of Rs.49800 to firm and said amount is received back by him on 3.4.07. deposit is genuine. ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 13 Asst. Year 2006-07 16. From going through above observations of ld. Assessing Officer it is amply proved that all impugned transactions of cash credits are duly explained and identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of each of them are proved in form of bank account, confirmations, reply of cash creditors u/s 133(6) of Act in some cases, confirmation leters. We are, therefore, of view that addition u/s 68 of Act for Rs.5,68,000/- needs to be deleted. We do so. This ground of assessee is also allowed. 17. Next we take up ground relating to disallowance u/s 41(1) of Act at Rs. 87,500/-. 18. Ld. CIT(A) has sustained addition u/s 41(1) of Act towards sundry creditors namely Sureshchandra Hiralal Mali at Rs.48,200/- and Ranchodlal S. Parmar at Rs.39,300/-. We observe that during processing of preparing remand report ld. Assessing Officer examined both sundry creditors. In respect of Ranchodlal S. Parmar ledger account was furnished and on cross verification one letter was received from Ranchodlal S. Parmar that amount is outstanding for Rs.39,300/-. Similarly, with regard to sundry creditor Sureshchandra Hiralal Mali balance of Rs.48,200/-, assessee has asserted that this impugned liability was actually outstanding as at close of year. We further observe that assessee was able to satisfy lower authorities with regard to all other sundry creditors in respect of which addition u/s 41(1) of Act was made. Further we also observe that Revenue has not been able to controvert ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 14 Asst. Year 2006-07 submissions of ld. AR as well as views expressed by ld. AO in remand report. 19. We further find that ld. AR has referred and relied on judgment of Hon. Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara in Tax Appeal No.588 of 2013 adjudicating issue relating to addition under section41(1) of Act and their Lordships have held as below :- We are in agreement with view of Tribunal. Section 41(1) of Act as discussed in above three decisions would apply in case where there has been remission or cessation of liability during year under consideration subject to conditions contained in statute being fulfilled. Additionally, such cessation or remission has to be during previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. In present case, both elements are missing. There was nothing on record to suggest there was remission or cessation of liability that too during previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-08 which was year under consideration. It is undoubtedly curious case. Even liability itself seems under serious doubt. Assessing Officer undertook exercise to verify records of so called creditors. Many of them were not found at all in given address. Some of them stated that they had no dealing with assessee. In one or two cases, response was that they had no dealing with assessee nor did they know him. Of course, these inquiries were made ex parte and in that view of matter, assessee would be allowed to contest such findings. Nevertheless, even if such facts were established through bi-parte inquiries, liability as it stands perhaps holds that there was no cessation or remission of liability and that therefore, amount in question cannot be added back as deemed income under section 41(c) f Act. This is one of strange cases where even if debt itself is found to be non-genuine from very inception, at least in terms of section 41(1) of Act there is no cure for it. Be that as it may, insofar as orders of Revenue authorities are concerned, Tribunal not having made any error, this Tax Appeal is dismissed. ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 15 Asst. Year 2006-07 20. Respectfully following judgment of Hon. Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara (supra) we are, of view that no addition is called for u/s 41(1) of Act with regard to sundry creditors of Rs. 48,200/- and Rs.39,300/-. We set aside order of ld. CIT(A) and allow ground of assessee. 21. next ground taken up by assessee is against order of ld. CIT(A) confirming addition on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.90,730/-. 22. During course of assessment proceedings assessee was unable to produce copies of purchase bills towards addition of plant and machinery at Rs.5,40,330/- and addition towards factory building at Rs.53,579/-. Due to this reason depreciation @ 15% on Rs.5,40,330/- and 10% on Rs.53,579/- was disallowed. In appeal before ld. CIT(A) ground was partly allowed by ld. CIT(A) by observing as under :- 4.3. I have considered submissions of learned Authorized Representative and order of Assessing Officer. As also noted earlier appellant did not file complete copy of bills either during course of assessment proceedings or during course of Remand Report and subsequent invoice filed before undersigned were not considered as genuine and admissible and therefore on principle Assessing Officer's action is upheld. However, Assessing Officer may rework this disallowance in view of part invoice produced during course of remand proceedings. This ground is partially allowed. 23. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before Tribunal. ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 16 Asst. Year 2006-07 24. Ld. AR referred and relied on remand report of Assessing Officer and on other hand ld. DR supported orders of lower authorities. 25. We have heard rival contentions and perused material on record. We find that when remand report was called for by CIT(A) for examining addition u/s 68, assessee was able to produce only copy of bill for Rs.729/- for verification out of total addition towards factory building at Rs.53,579/-. As regards addition on account of plant and machinery, assessee produced bills of Rs.2,90,183/- for verification. For remaining amount of addition towards factory building and plant and machinery assessee neither produced any evidence before assessing authority nor ld. AR has been able to improve his case further than over facts brought in before assessing authority in remand report. We are, therefore, of view that out of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.90,730/- assessee should be allowed depreciation on Rs.729/- towards factory building and depreciation on plant and machinery at Rs.2,90,183/- as per applicable rates and on basis of date of purchases of assets. We direct Assessing Officer to calculate depreciation accordingly. This ground is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 26. Other grounds are of general nature, which need no adjudication. 20. In result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 913/Ahd/2011 17 Asst. Year 2006-07 Order pronounced in open Court on 20th September, 2016 Sd/- sd/- (S. S. Godara) (Manish Borad) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated 20/9/2016 Mahata/- Copy of order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT concerned 4. CIT(A) concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard File BY ORDER Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation: 09/09/2016 2. Date on which typed draft is placed before Dictating Member: 12-20/09/2016 other Member: 3. Date on which approved draft comes to Sr. P. S./P.S.: 4. Date on which fair order is placed before Dictating Member for pronouncement: __________ 5. Date on which fair order comes back to Sr. P.S./P.S.: 6. Date on which file goes to Bench Clerk:20/9/16 7. Date on which file goes to Head Clerk: 8. date on which file goes to Assistant Registrar for signature on order: 9. Date of Despatch of Order: Maruti Pole Industries v. ITO, Ward-3(2), Baroda