TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty imposed by the AO on this issue cannot be sustained. The AO is therefore directed to delete the penalty. Addition sustained on account of disallowance of claim of depreciation - One of the averments of the assessee before the authorities below was that under the identical facts, the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim of depreciation in succeeding year. This fact is not rebutted by the Revenue. It was further contended that the assessee had disclosed and furnished true and correct particulars of its income at the time of filing of return. The assessee had not acted in defiance of law and did not act on conscious in this regard to the law. We find merit into the contention of the assessee merely because if a claim is rejected by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts of the case and deserves to be deleted. 03. That any other grounds of appeal may be added/deleted or amended at the time of hearing. Therefore it is prayed that penalty as impugned U/S 271(1)(c ) of the Act by the A.O. may please be cancelled or any other suitable order as the Hon'ble Bench may deem fit be passed. 2. In addition to these grounds, the assessee has also raised following additional grounds:- 1. That the order imposing penalty is bad in law and void ab initia since the date of initiation of the penalty proceedings in the assessment order u/s 143(3) and subsequently by way of show cause notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271, the AO has not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs CIT [SC] 348 ITR 306. Further, it was submitted that the claim was made under the bonafide belief that such deduction was available. It was contended that the assessee disclosed and furnished the correct particulars of his income. However, the AO did not accept this contention of the assessee and he proceeded to levy the impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who also sustained the penalty. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that objection of the assessee again levy of penalty are in thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT vs Integrated Technologies Ltd. in ITA No.530/2011. It was contended that the claim of depreciation was allowed by the Ld.CIT(A) in the case of the assessee for the succeeding year under identical facts and circumstances. It was submitted that the assessee had disclosed true and correct particulars of its income at the time of filing of its return and had neither concealed any particulars of its income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. All the requisite details and explanation were filed from time to time. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 588. 6. Ld.Sr.DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of authorities be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities below was that under the identical facts, the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim of depreciation in succeeding year. This fact is not rebutted by the Revenue. It was further contended that the assessee had disclosed and furnished true and correct particulars of its income at the time of filing of return. The assessee had not acted in defiance of law and did not act on conscious in this regard to the law. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra). 9. We find merit into the contention of the assessee merely because if a claim is rejected by the Assessing Officer, would not ipso facto made the assessee liable for penalty. In the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... participated in the penalty proceedings and made submissions. Now at such a belated stage, the assessee should not be allowed to raise such a plea. He contended that it is not the case of an ignorant assessee. Moreover, during the proceedings before the authorities below, no such ground or objection was raised. Hence, he prayed that the additional ground raised in this appeal be dismissed. 12. We have heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the AO vide notice dated 28.02.2014 called upon the assessee as to why the penalty should not be imposed vide notice dated 28.02.2014. For the sake of clarity, relevant contents of the notice d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
