9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 (In Short "Act"). 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessment in this case was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 02.12.2009 at loss of (-) Rs. 2,83,53,758/- as against returned loss of (-) Rs. 10,02,63,570/- after making additions of Rs. 7,16,79,068/- on account of depreciation; Rs. 86,224/- on account of internal audit and tax audit fees and Rs. 1,44,510/- on account of licence fee / rent free accommodation to employee. Against the additions the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dated 28.1.2011 confirmed the addition of Rs. 7,16,79,068/- on account of depreciation and Rs. 86,224/- on account of internal audit and tax audit fees and deleted the addition of Rs. 1,44,510/- on account licence fee/ r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, we are deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records available. 6. Ld. DR strongly relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. On careful consideration of the matter, we find that assessment was completed at loss of Rs. 2,83,53,768/- against the returned loss of Rs. 10,02,63,570/- by disallowing the depreciation to the tune of Rs. 7,16,79,068/- on account of excessive depreciation and Rs. 86224/- on account of internal and tax audit fees fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alment of income. Therefore, the assessee has not at all concealed any particulars of such income and has also not furnished inaccurate particulars of income. To these facts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR-158 (SC) is directly applicable here wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue that by itself would not attract the penalty under section 271 (1)(c). 8. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedent, as aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the assessee has neither concealed the income n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
