Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (11) TMI 1432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the assessment or cancelling the assessment. Therefore, what is required u/s 263 is an opportunity of being heard. Sec. 263 does not require the CIT to issue any show cause notice. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that even if there was any defect in the show cause notice that will not affect the consequential order passed by the CIT. This view of ours is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT vs Electro House [1971 (9) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court ].- Decided against assessee Claim of depreciation in respect of machinery purchased from Germany - CIT(A) directed AO to allow 50% claim - Held that:- As from the material available on record, it appears that the machinery was installed and put to use on 25.9.2010 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the CIT, he may initiate penalty proceedings and decide the same on his own. However, the CIT has no authority to direct the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings. The direction of the Administrative Commissioner to initiate penalty proceedings would amount to interference with judicial function of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT has exceeded his jurisdiction in directing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the CIT is set aside and direction issued by the CIT to initiate penalty proceedings is quashed.- Decided in favour of assessee - S.P.No.351/Mds/2015, I.T.A.No1248/Mds/2015. - - - Dated:- 28-8-2015 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bmitted that the assessee made a claim of ₹ 53,61,645/- towards additional depreciation. However, the assessee realized later on that claiming additional depreciation is an inadvertent mistake, therefore, it withdrew the clam of additional depreciation. However, the CIT directed the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Referring to sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the ld. Counsel submitted that penalty proceedings cannot be directed to be initiated by higher authority. According to the ld. Counsel, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be initiated either by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT in the course of any proceedings if they satisfy themselves regarding furnishing of inaccurate particulars or c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... quired. Referring to initiation of penalty proceedings, the ld. DR submitted that the CIT, being the administrative authority, can very well direct the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Let us first take up the defect in the show cause notice. The contention of the assessee is that the CIT has not applied his mind and the show cause notice was prepared only by the ITO and the basic details as required are not available in the show cause notice. In fact, the show cause notice was issued by the CIT and not by the Assessing Officer. We have gone through the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act. Sec. 26 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee is entitled for full depreciation. Hence, the CIT is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow only 50% depreciation. Accordingly, the order of the CIT is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow full depreciation in respect of the machinery purchased from Germany. 10. Now coming to the difference in turnover and closing stock, both the ld. Counsel and the ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has verified and no addition was made. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the ld. Counsel, the issue does not require any adjudication by this Tribunal. 11. Now coming to the direction of the CIT to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the authorities under the Income-tax Act a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates