TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ITA Nos. 686/DEL/2010 - - - Dated:- 15-4-2010 - SHRI C.L. SETHI, SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, JJ. Assessee by : Shri Gagan Kumar, CA Department by : Shri N.K. Chand, DR O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 20.11.2009 and pertains to assessment year 2006-07. 2. The issue raised is that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 232582/- imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 3. In this case during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed additional Depreciation on plant and machinery at Rs. 21,73,127/-. Assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure was being madespent on increasing the capital, it was not allowable as revenue expenditure. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was added back to the total income of the assessee on this account. 3.2 On the above additions penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied on the ground that the assessee had claimed inadmissible expenses and hence had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3.3 Upon assessee s appeal ld. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(A) deleted the addition. 3.4 Against this order the revenue is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. 3.5 We find that the first aspect of the penalty in this regard is with reference to claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese circumstances, in our considered opinion there is no violation of section 271(1)(c) which mandates of levy of penalty for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In this regard, we find that Hon ble Apex Court has recently in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. has held that the law laid down in the Dilip Sheroff case 291 ITR 519 (SC) as to the meaning of word concealment and inaccurate continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon ble Apex Court also observed that if the contention of the revenue is accepted then in case of every retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
