TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed on valuation certificate and it could not be said that the said valuation is without any cause or justification, thus it led the assessee to claim higher depreciation but however for whatever reasons the said assets was transferred vide registered agreement entered into on 05.08.2006 at lower value of ₹ 92.29 lacs which led the assessee to revise its claim of depreciation downward for impugned assessment year by withdrawing claim of depreciation to the tune of ₹ 3,63,548/-. Thus under these circumstances in our considered view , the assessee has come out with bonafide explanation and under these circumstances no penalty is exigible on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act as the assessee case is covered by Explanation 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is exigible on the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No.1991/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2019 - Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member And Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri. Sunil Desai For the Revenue : Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by Assessee, being ITA No. 1991/Mum/2017, is directed against appellate order dated 22.12.2015 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, Mumbai (hereinafter called the CIT(A) ), for assessment year 2006-07, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the books of the assessee at ₹ 167.58 lakhs during the impugned assessment year. The assessee claimed depreciation @5% on this amount of ₹ 167.58 lakhs but subsequently in the next assessment year , the transfer of the said asset was regularised by registered agreement which was registered with the registration authorities on 05.08.2006 for ₹ 92,29,040/- . The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings revised the depreciation amount to ₹ 4,74,358/- by reducing it by ₹ 3,63,548/- by claiming depreciation on value of ₹ 94,87,163/-, which led to the addition to the income of the assessee declared in the return of income filed with Revenue to the tune of ₹ 3,63,548/- vide assessment framed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has entered into an registered agreement for a lower figures of ₹ 92,29,040/- and hence the depreciation was suo-moto revised downward on the registered value of the office premises. So far as other issue is concerned, it was submitted that the assets were purchased by the assessee but the invoices were made by vendors in the name of S.D. Construction as the said concern is very popular in the market. The assets were transferred to the books of the assessee by way of journal entry. Thus, it was submitted that it is only the invoices which were in the name of the S.D. Construction as it was submitted that this concern S D Construction is a very famous/popular concern and in normal course vendor prepare invoices in the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 8,37,906/- at the rate of 5% on the said valuation of the office flats which was recorded in books of accounts of the assessee. Subsequently on 05.08.2006 the said office premises was registered for ₹ 92,29,040/- vide registered agreement and lower depreciation was claimed on it by revising the depreciation claimed earlier downward which led to reduction of depreciation by ₹ 3,63,548/- . The assessee on realising its mistake has suo motto revised aforesaid depreciation during assessment proceedings and claimed depreciation on lower value on which the asset was transferred subsequently on 05.08.2006. In our considered view , the assessee had justifiable cause for claiming higher depreciation in the return of income filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction is very famous concern in market and people know this concern. The vendors had inadvertently made invoices in the name of this concern as it is well known concern in market. It is submitted that the assessee accounted for these purchases in its books of accounts and these assets were transferred to the assessee books of accounts through journal entries. It is also being averred that no depreciation was claimed by S.D. Construction on these assets. We have also noted that the claim of the assessee for depreciation on these assets did not found favour by the all the authorities concurrently while adjudicating quantum additions till the stage of tribunal and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by tribunal on this ground in ITA no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
