9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal and confirming the disallowance of higher depreciation claimed by the appellant, which is the basis of the levy of penalty. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in not considering fully and properly the written submissions furnished by the appellant with regard to the impugned penalty. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in taking cognizance that merely because the appellant had claimed the higher rate of depreciation which was not accepted by the AO, that by itself would not attract the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking the cognizance of rectification application u/s. 154 which was also within its ambit and also rejecting the plea of the appellant during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appealed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide impugned order dated 13.4.2016 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Against the above order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 13.4.2016, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal and confirming the disallowance of higher depreciation claimed by the assessee, which is the basis of levy of penalty. He further stated that assessee has claimed depreciation on tanker at Rs. 5,91,773/- @ 50%, however, the AO has allowed the depreciation @15%. He further assessee aggrieved with the depreciation @15% filed an application dated 8.6.2015 u/s. 154 of the I.T. Act stating therein that depreciation @30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tanker on hire is also evident from the balance sheet of the appellant wherein an amount of Rs. 7,02,186 has been shown as the tanker hire receipts in the profit and loss account. The balance sheet was before the AO when the assessment u/s. 143(3) was framed. Thus from these facts it is evident that it is a mistake apparent from record and thus falls within the purview of section 154. The appellant is also furnished letter dated 8.8.2014 addressed to the AO and furnished to the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, wherein at Point No. 14 it has been clearly mentioned that freight charges on tanker have been received from Anil & Company (which clearly shows that the tankers have been given on hire). Thus I find that it is clearl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recomputed the depreciation on both the tankers @30%, which establishes that assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and is not liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act postulates imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. In this regard, I draw my support from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR-158 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'where there is no findings that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there is no question of inviting the penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. A m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
