TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulars of income - no penalty cannot be levied - in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 560/AHD/2012. - - - Dated:- 31-5-2012 - SHRI D.K. TYAGI, SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, JJ. By Revenue : Shri Vinod Tanwani. By Assessee : Shri Gaurav Nahta. ORDER PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT (A)- VI, Ahmedabad s order dated 1-12-2011 for the assessment year 2005-06. 2. The sole ground of appeal taken by the Revenue reads as under:- 1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and facts in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) levied by the A.O. on the addition of additional depreciation . 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preciation. The assessee s claim of additional depreciation was based on the certificate of the auditor and therefore the claim of assessee cannot be said to be bogus or frivolous claim. Accordingly, Ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty levied by A.O. Aggrieved by the decision of CIT (A) the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, the Ld. D.R., submitted that the A.O. in the assessment order has given a finding that the certificate of Chartered Accountant was erroneous. The assessee could not produce any details or evidence either before A.O. or before CIT (A) as to how the installed capacity was increased in excess of 10%. No evidence was produced even at the time of penalty proceedings. Ld. D.R. pointed out to the fact that the Dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to the conclusion that the amount added was concealed income. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee s claim for additional depreciation of Rs.18,42,527/- was disallowed by the A.O. and was also confirmed by CIT (A). Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT also affirmed the action of A.O. for the reason that assessee failed to prove that it s installed capacity has increased at any point of time. It is a fact that the assessee had purchased new plant and machinery on which it claimed additional depreciation. This fact is not controverted by Revenue nor has it brought on record any material to prove that assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
