TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted from the assessment order itself. In the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances, considering the fact that even after the said addition the assessee was allowed business loss to be carried forward to the extent of ₹ 2.96 crore odd, we have no hesitation in following the judicial precedent relied upon to hold that the explanation offered is bonafide and deserves to be allowed. It is seen that at best the claim of the assessee can be called a wrong claim and by no stretch of imagination on the facts as they stand can it be called a false claim. We have taken into consideration the order of the coordinate bench relied upon in the case of Vasudev Pahwa vs. ACIT (2012 (10) TMI 1009 - ITAT DELHI) and the principle laid down i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts which led to the addition being made are extracted from the assessment order hereunder: 3. The assessee is in generation of electricity through wind mills. As per purchase invoices in the name of M/s Om Windfarm, Shiv Windfarm M/s Gopal Windfarm dated 20.05.2006 in which cases the assessee is the proprietor, having purchased these second hand Wind Mills including cost of land amounting to ₹ 4,83,00,000/-. On the mills she has claimed depreciation, but during verification it was found that sale/purchase deeds do not provide the separate cost of land and actual cost of Wind Mills. So it was found that the assessee was also claimed depreciation on land, which is not allowable. The assessee was asked to furnish the actual cost o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciation was based on sale deeds which admittedly did not provide separate cost of land and separate cost of Wind Mills. This it was submitted is an admitted fact. Accordingly, it was his submission that the present case cannot be said to be where any inaccurate particulars have been filed or for that matter a false claim has been made as admittedly the accountants have gone by the figure given in the sale deed. It was his submission that a perusal of the assessment order would show that the assessment was concluded allowing the business loss of ₹ 2,96,04,111/-. For readyreference, we reproduce from the assessment order:- After discussion income of the assessee is computed as under: Income from Business/Profession (Loss) ₹ 3, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordinate bench in ITA No. 463/Del/2011 in the case of Vasu Dev Pahwa vs. ACIT , wherein more or less considering identical facts relying on CIT vs. Barcardi Martini India Limited, 288 ITR 585 and CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) . Referring to these it was submitted that the penalty order was quashed holding that all necessary facts were disclosed by the assessee as such it could not be said that the assessee has either concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars. It was argued that a wrong claim cannot be treated as a false case in the facts of the present case. 6. Ld. Sr. DR placed heavy reliance upon the orders of the authorities below. Reliance was also placed upon CIT vs. Zoom Commu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
