9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant and machinery under TUF scheme @ 50% at Rs. 48,35,632/- being 50% of WDV at Rs. 96,71,262/- which consists of opening WDV at Rs. 74,98,599/- and perchases of new machinery for the period exceeding 180 days at Rs. 21,73,005/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the details regarding excess depreciation claimed at 50% instead of 15%. In reply, the assessee company submitted that texturizing is a very important process without which no fabrics can be made from POY yarn. Therefore, higher rate of depreciation may be allowed in as much as that the TUF authorities have also approved the project under the prevailing scheme. According to the Income Tax Rules plant and machinery used in the textile industry used in weaving, processing and garmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the order of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Hanuman Filament P. Ltd vide ITA No. 2819/Ahd/2009 dated 17/12/2009 in which on identical facts the Hon'ble Tribunal has deleted the penalty by observing as under:- "6.1. The penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable if the AO is satisfied in the course of any proceedings under this Act that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is well settled that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct and as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ananthraman & Co. Vs. CIT- 123 ITR 457, the finding in the assessment pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. Since all the material facts relevant to the said claim had been furnished by the assessee, in our opinion it is not a fit case to attract the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere rejection of the claim of the assessee by relying on different interpretations does not amount to concealment of the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, by the assessee. When two views, are possible, no penalty can be imposed, is a principle that has been enunciated in the decision in the case of CIT v. P.K. Narayanan [1999] 238 ITR 905 (Ker) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. (2001) 170 CTR (P & H) 489: (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P & H) have observed that merely because cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
