TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty" is patently and ex facie untenable. It is not an issue on which two opinions can possibly be formed and the assessee chose to follow the view favourable to it. The provisions of Chapter IV-C are simple and plain in not admitting any deduction for expenses, etc., of the nature which have been claimed by the assessee, within its ambit. As the assessee knowingly made a wrong claim which is patently inadmissible, we cannot, but, uphold penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our view is fortified by a recent judgment from the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. NG Technologies Ltd. [2014 (12) TMI 481 - DELHI HIGH COURT), in which the assessee claimed deduction for loss on sale of fixed assets in its profit and loss account. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approached the hon'ble Delhi High Court. Vide its judgment dated March 11, 2014, the hon'ble Delhi High Court vacated the view of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty on the basis of lack of proper satisfaction. Accordingly, the matter has been remanded for deciding penalty on merits. 3. We have heard the learned Departmental representative and perused the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of this appeal ex parte qua the assessee. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a builder and promoter. No business activity was carried on during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ession has been rejected and, resultantly, claim for depreciation amounting to ₹ 1,83,951, building maintenance expenses of ₹ 22,15,072 and commission paid for letting out building at ₹ 5,39,000 has been rejected. The assessee's further claim for deduction of ₹ 10 lakhs for getting the property vacated has also been found to be unacceptable. Similar is the position regarding disallowance of ₹ 9,15,800 towards maintenance expenses and ₹ 70,000 paid as architect fees in respect of building let out by the assessee. In view of the above Tribunal order, it becomes clear that the assessee's contention for claiming deductions towards various expenses, etc., against income from house property have been h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
