2016 (1) TMI 1231

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the total income of Rs. 79,800/-. The return was processed and after the scrutiny and Assessment Order dt. 11/08/2011 was passed u/s 143(3) of the income Tax, 1961. 2.1 During the assessment proceeding AO noticed that the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs. 4,98,563/- on motor car against interest income received from firms on his capital balance chargeable as business income under the provisions of subsection (v) of section 28 of the Act and his share in the total income of the firm which is otherwise exempt u/s 2A of section10 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2.2 The assessee was asked to explain as to why depreciation claimed on car put to personal use should not be disallowed, for the reason that the assessee was not actively engage .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te that the appellant's case is covered by aforesaid judgment. On the other hand of Ld. DR relying on concurrent finding of AO and Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra textile Processors, 2008, 306 ITR 277. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the documents on record in the light of rival submissions. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act contemplates that if the AO or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principle Commissioner or Commissioner as the case may be, in the course of any proceedings under the Act, is satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particulars of the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the assessee has not challenged the additions made by the AO cannot be the reason for arriving at the conclusion that the assessee has intentionally furnished incorrect or inaccurate information and thereby made himself liable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the case Dharmendra textile Processors (supra) in reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (supra), therefore there is no substance in the contention of the revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order in accordance with the law laid down by the apex court. 10. In view of the facts of the case, evidence on record and in the light of the judgments discussed in the foregoing paras, we are of the considered opinion that the case of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X