9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue against the order dated 15/06/2012 passed by the learned CIT(A)-II, Jaipur for A.Y. 2008-09. The sole ground of appeal is as under:- "(i) Deleting penalty of Rs. 20,51,508/-imposed by the A.O. U/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee has deliberately claimed wrong depreciation at higher rate not only in the year under consideration but in the last ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admissibility of above depreciation as per the Act. In response thereof, the AR of the assessee vide its letter dated 28/12/2010 has replied, which has been reproduced at page No. 2 of the assessment order. After considering the assessee's reply he held that the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory and it is established that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim of depreciation to 15% on the crockery, cutlery, blankets, linen and dresses and @ 10% on furnishing and decorations. It is seen that the assessee had disclosed all material facts pertaining to the claim of depreciation admissible U/s 32 of the Act. There was no deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of the income or filing inaccurate particulars of income. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year under consideration but in A.Y. 2008-09, the assessee revised the depreciation claimed during the assessment proceedings. The assets had been disclosed by the assessee, therefore, no inaccurate particulars of income has been furnished. We, therefore, uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). 6. In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/04/2015.< ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
