TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee is a partnership firm running educational institution in the name of Guruji Shree Sandipani Education Foundation. The firm had claimed depreciation u/s 32 as well as deduction u/s 24 on School Building which was let out. The return of income was filed on 28-10-2005 declaring total loss at ₹ 8,64,880/- and the assessment was completed on 26-04-2007 determining total income at ₹ 3,41,190/- by making disallowances of depreciation of ₹ 10,41,438/- disallowance of legal expenses of ₹ 1,33,875/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowances of depreciation of ₹ 10,41,438/- to ₹ 6,71,643/-and remaining addition/disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xxii) National Textile v. CIT 242 ITR 125 (Guj) xxiii) Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) The case laws narrated by the assessee is that there is no concealment of income and that provisions of Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) are not attracted to the case of the assessee. 3. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the various case laws confirmed the penalty levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by relying upon ITAT Delhi bench decision in the case of CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) 191 Taxman 179 (Del) and ITAT Ahmedabad bench decision in ITA No.2078/Ahd/2006 in the case of Gujarat Sate Financial Services Ltd. v. ITO for the sake of clarity, which is reproduced as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under section 271(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 no acting bona fide while making a claim of this nature, that would give a license to unscrupulous assessee 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 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en substantiated nor found to be bona fide and there is no material before us to take a different view in the matter we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the levy of penalty on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in relation to provision for bad and doubtful debts and provision for diminution in the value of investments. Being aggrieved by this order of ld. CIT(A) assessee came in second appeal before us. 4. Before us the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the case law of ITAT Chandigarh bench in the case of DCIT v. Shahabad Co-Op Sugar Mills (2010) 33 DTR 19 (Chd), where addition was wrong claim of depreciation. He further draw our attention at page-29 of assessee s paper book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
