TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STICE R.V. EASWAR, JJ. For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, sr. standing counsel with Ms. Anshul Sharma, Adv. For Respondent: Mr. Kaanan Kapur, Adv. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J: (OPEN COURT) The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order dated 25.3.2011 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal‟, for short) whereby its appeal was dismissed. It urges that the Tribunal fell into error in holding that the penalty to the extent of Rs.10,09,948/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act‟, for short), was not leviable on the assessee. 2. The assessee is engaged inter alia in rendering consultancy services. It had, for the assessment year 1997-98, claimed depreciation in respect of the proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim for deduction of the provision for taxation. 3. The assessee and the revenue filed cross-appeals before this Court in ITA Nos.1332 and 1494/2006. They were disposed of by order of this Court on 29.9.2008 remitting the matter for reconsideration, to the Tribunal, on merits. 4. The Tribunal by its impugned order held that having regard to the circumstances, the penalty could not be levied. The essential reasoning of the Tribunal is to be found in para 6 of its impugned order which reads as follows : 6. We have heard both the sides. The provision made for advance tax of Rs.23,50,000/- debited in the P L account not added back to income is bonafide mistake. Assessee paid advance tax in the month of March only. It is the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, the penalty order made by the Assessing Officer was warranted in the circumstances. Ld. counsel also relied upon the decision reported as CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (supra). Ld. counsel for the assessee contended that it is evident that the CIT(Appeals) has partially accepted the assessee‟s claims to the extent that the depreciation was granted in respect of the Bangalore property. Ld. counsel stressed upon the fact that the Khan Market property had been let out only from August, 1996 and under the circumstances there seems to have been a mechanical repetition of the claim in the return filed. So far as the question of furnishing inaccurate particulars with regard to the provision of taxation is concerned, ld. counsel submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
