TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als on record to show that the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, relied on by him, for deleting the levy of penalty was varied in appeal by any higher forum. We find that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-vs- Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd.(2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT) wherein held a mere making of an claim not sustainable in law, would not invite penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.2039/Kol/2010 - - - Dated:- 26-8-2015 - Shri N.S.Saini and Shri Mahavir Singh, JJ. For The Department : Shri K.N.Jana, Sr.DR For The Assessee : None ORDER Per Shri N.S.Saini, A.M. This appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the same does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Being not satisfied with the above explanation of the assessee, the AO held that the assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars and/or concealed income to reduce tax liability. Accordingly, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) @100% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to ₹ 18,77,731/-. 7. Being aggrieved against the said order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 8. The assessee submitted that the issue of levy of penalty for disallowing the claim of depreciation on land was also raised in earlier assessment year 2005-06 and the issue was decided by the Ld. CIT(A), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies Act, 1956 as on 31.03.2005. The appellant had mistakenly claimed depreciation on land amounting to ₹ 41,63,495/- in the return of income. The appellant had realized the mistake and in the course of assessment proceedings rectified the mistake and withdrew the erroneous claim. The AO had also taken the revised claim of depreciation made by the appellant for all the assets and completed the assessment. In the penalty and appellant proceedings, the appellant submitted that it had mistakenly claimed depreciation and had no malafide intention of concealing the income. The appellant, having provided all the material facts of ownership of assets and having furnished a satisfactory explanation which is bonafide, is not liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount of concealment of income by the assessee where no evidence in the form of advice received from his Auditor could be produced by the assessee for claiming deduction of the amount on account of certain equipment becoming useless and having written off and amount of income tax paid. 10. Notice of hearing was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due to the respondent assessee. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called for hearing and neither any adjournment application was filed. Therefore, the appeal was heard ex parte qua the respondent assessee and disposed off considering the submissions of the Ld. D.R. 11. We have considered the submission of the Ld. DR. It is seen that the order of the Ld. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
