Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 164 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee claimed depreciation u/s 32 on road constructed on Build- Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis - AO denied on the basis that the road was not owned by the Assessee - Circular No.9 of 2014 dated 23.04.2014 allow amortization of cost - revenue contended that assessee accepted the assessment order disallowing the depreciation, it is clear that it was attempted to avoid tax and that the claim of depreciation was wrongly made HELD THAT:- Revenue relied upon a judgment of Delhi High Court passed in CIT Vs. Morgan Finvest Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (12) TMI 457 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that this is not a case where all the correct particulars relating to the claim were furnished and a claim for relief or allowance was made on that basis, which was not accepted by the assessing officer who did not question the particulars relating to the claim, but merely took a different view on the very same particulars. This is a case where questionable details and particulars relating to the claim were furnished by the assessee and such details were so fundamental to the genuineness and bona fide of the claim that the mere furnishing of those particulars made the claim vulnerable. In the present case, we find that the facts are starkly different. The Revenue had itself accepted that there was a doubt and that is why the clarification of 2014 was issued. Had it been so cut and dried there was no occasion for the Board to have issued the clarification and infact, this is precisely what weighed with the Commissioner, Income Tax, Panchkula and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. In the circumstances of the case we are not able to find any fault with the judgment and orders of the Courts below. No other question of law arises.
|