Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

ACIT, CC-XXIII, Kol. Versus M/s. Zenith Timber Products (P) Ltd., Kol

2015 (9) TMI 651 - ITAT KOLKATA

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of claim of depreciation on land - assessee submitted that he had computed and claimed the depreciation on land due to misconception and confessed the mistake at the time of hearing by submitting a fresh depreciation chart - CIT(A) deleted penalty levy - Held that:- Order of the Ld. CIT(A) finds support from the order of the Tribunal passed in the case of the assessee itself in the immediately preceding assessment year 2005-06 on identical set of fact .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Cross Objection filed by the Assessee are against the order of the CIT(A)-III, Kolkata dated 30.08.2010 for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

econciliation chart on depreciation of land and stated that depreciation on land for assessment year 2003-04 was already taxed and for the assessment year 2004-05 also, disallowance of depreciation on land has been completed. Therefore, the AO added ₹ 54,92,794/- to the income of the assessee by disallowing the claim of depreciation on land. 4. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and required the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be levied on acc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nation 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 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as first two additions are concerned, on identical issues, the penalty imposed for A/Yr. 05-06 has been cancelled by the Ld. CIT(A):C-III:Kol and such cancellation was upheld by the Hon ble ITAT. I have gone through the copies of both these orders, the details of which are given below: (1) Appeal No.71/CC-XXIII/CIT(A)/C-III/08-09 dated 08.12.2008; (2) ITA No.221/Kol/09 A.Yr. 05-06. 7. Further going through these orders I am of the opinion that the issues are identical and my Ld. Predecessor has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

land in Schedule D- Details fixed assets as per Companies 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 pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, is not in accordance with law. The Hon ble ITAT after going through all the facts, upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A):C-III:Kol. 8. Respectfully following the orders of the Hon ble Tribunal and my predecessor, I hold that the imposition of penalty on the aforementioned 2 additions is not in accordance with the law. 9. The ld. D.R. supported the order of the AO. In support of the same, he placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-vs- Morgan Finvest (P) Ltd. [201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

business of the assessee. The ld. D.R. also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-vs- Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. [2010] 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi) where it was held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposable on account 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version