TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. On the facts of the assessee’s case, in our opinion, the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT) would be squarely applicable - Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.5043/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2014 - SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri Satpal Singh, Sr.DR. For The Respondent by : Shri M.L. Dujari, CA. ORDER PER G.D.AGRAWAL, VP : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi dated 25th June, 2013 for the AY 2005-06. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:- 1. Whether ld. CIT(A) was correct on facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch additions were made by the ld.AO, (that have been sustained by the ITAT) it is to be ascertained whether the appellant had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. On careful consideration of the facts of the case, it is evident that the appellant had furnished the details relating to various equipments and machinery, which were installed for putting in use the new factory shed. The details are also evident in the audit report in Form No.3CD. The Hon ble ITAT has also confirmed these facts. The disallowance was only in respect of one bill for installation of a HB-8 boring machine, in respect of which the appellant s claim was that the contract for the same was given to the contractor on 20.02.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication P.Ltd. - 327 ITR 510 and submitted that the claim of the assessee with regard to depreciation as well as repair expenses was not bona fide. He, therefore, submitted that the order of learned CIT(A) should be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 7. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. We find that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (supra) held as under:- In the case of Reliance Petroproducts P.Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the interest claimed as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(1)(c) of the Act. If we take the view that a claim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation on which it could be made, the assessee would not be liable to imposition of penalty, even if he was not acting bona fide while making a claim of this nature, that would give a licence to unscrupulous assessees to make wholly untenable and unsustainable claims without there being any basis for making them, in the hope that their return would not be picked up for scrutiny and they would be assessed on the basis of self-assessment under section 143(1) of the Act and even if their case is selected for scrutiny, they can get away merely by paying the tax, which in any case, was payable by them. The consequence would be that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bona fide, then he will not be liable for penalty. Therefore, the precise question to be adjudicated by us is whether the assessee s claim was bona fide or mala fide. 9. On the facts of the assessee s case, we do not find any material to hold that the claim of the assessee was not bona fide. We find that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of depreciation amounting to `82,07,445/-, out of which, the ITAT sustained the disallowance only to the extent of `11,93,714/-. The CIT(A) has recorded the finding that the assessee has furnished complete details with regard to acquisition of equipment and machinery, their installation etc. The details furnished by the assessee were not found to be false or inaccurate. That merely because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
