TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court. - Decided in favour of assessee - C.O. No.43/Mum/2014 (Arising out of ITA No. 796/M/2010) - - - Dated:- 25-5-2016 - SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Revenue by : Shri B.C. Naik (CIT-DR) Assessee by : Shri Yogesh A. Thar(AR) O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. This appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection (C.O.) filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-7, Mumbai dated 10.11.2009 for Assessment Year (AY) 1993-94 were heard together and are being disposed of by common order, as the same are arising out of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee in the had claimed depreciation on Power Plant Install Raj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given circumstances though the disallowance on the part of deprecation claimed by appellant is justified, but the penal action for concealment of income is held to be not justified. Accordingly, the penalty imposed for concealment u/s. 271(1)(c) is deleted. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal and the assessee filed C.O. We have heard ld. DR for Revenue and AR for assessee and perused the material available on record. Ld. DR for Revenue argued that assessee was conscious since filing of return of income that depreciation on the boiler is not allowable and concealed the material date when the same was put to use. Ld. DR further argued that the disallowance was confirmed by CIT(A) as well as Co-or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the almost identical ratio(grounds) held as under: Having heard Mr Ahuja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, we find that this Appeal cannot be entertained as it does not raise any substantial question of law. The imposition of penalty was found not to be justified and the Appeal was allowed. As a proof that the penalty was debatable and arguable issue, the Tribunal referred to the order on Assessee s Appeal in Quantum proceedings and the substantial questions of law which have been framed therein. We have also perused that order dated 27th September 2010 admitting Income Tax Appeal No.2368 of 2009. In our view, there was no case made out for imposition of penalty and the same was rightly set aside. The Appeal raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
