TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtently as the flats were shown in the block of assets in the balance sheet - Assessee has claimed depreciation on flats. It is equally true that when the returned income of the assessee is in crores a claim of paltry sum of few lacs would do no tax benefit to the assessee. In our considered opinion the claim is definitely a human error and merely the claim was not allowable the same cannot lead to the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Projects Pvt. Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT .] Considering from this angle also we do not find impugned appeals fit for levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e super structure (penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act) must fall. The AO is directed to delete the penalty so levied. 6. ITA No.2142/Del/2014, 2143/Del/2014, 2138/Del/2014, 2139/Del/2014 and 2140/Del/2014 (A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 2010-11) -The quarrel is in respect of the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)of the Act on identical facts. The bone of contention is the disallowance of the claim of depreciation on flats. The assessee has claimed depreciation on flats which were part of the block of assets in the balance sheet. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO pointed out to the assessee that such claim of depreciation is not allowable. The assessee contended that since the flats are part of the block of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... couse failed to comply with a notice under section 143(1)/143(2) of the: income Tax Act, 1081 dated,... * have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of explanation 1,2,3,4, and 5 You are hereby requested to appear before me at 10.3GJMPM on 20/01/2012 And snow cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271 of the Income Tax Act-1061 if you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person of through authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considers before any such order is made under section 271. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Central Circle-25, N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250 (Kar.). 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 2.17 A similar decision has recently been given by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (ITA No. 475/2019, 426/2019, 427/2019 and 429/2019), the relevant extract of which is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee the disallowance was accepted and not appealed. The DR vehemently stated that the assessee has been claiming depreciation year after year and, therefore, the same cannot be considered as an inadvertent error. 14. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is true that the assessee has claimed depreciation on flats. It is equally true that when the returned income of the assessee is in crores a claim of paltry sum of few lacs would do no tax benefit to the assessee. 15. In our considered opinion the claim is definitely a human error and merely the claim was not allowable the same cannot lead to the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Project ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
