2015 (2) TMI 805

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessment year 1977-78 :                 "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied by the Assessing Officer on the basis of furnishing false information in respect of investment allowance/ depreciation claims, while the quantum appeal of the assessee before the hon'ble High Court is pending for decision ?" 2. Briefly, the facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as available on the record, are that assessment was completed on March 26, 1986, at an income of Rs. 8,56,075. Since the assessee had claimed investment allowance ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IT v. Late G. D. Naidu [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Mad), CIT v. SSP P. Ltd. [2008] 302 ITR 43 (P&H) and CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) to submit that since the assessee had furnished the report of M/s. Blue Star Ltd. wherein it was stated that the machinery was erected and installed in February, 1977, the findings recorded by the authorities were not correct though on the basis of report submitted by M/s. A.B.C. Consultants Ltd. in the assessment proceedings, it was held that the machinery was erected and installed during the period relating to the assessment year 1978-79. It was further argued that the penalty of Rs. 1,54,083 imposed on the assessee by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccept the report of M/s. ABC Consultants (P.) Ltd. in preference to the report of M/s. Blue Star Ltd. The Tribunal while upholding the addition in paragraph 29 of the order has observed as under :              "29. We have carefully considered the rival submissions as also the facts on record. Whether a machinery is installed or not is a matter of physical verification. The contemporaneous evidence in the form of report of the consultants clearly suggested that the machinery had either not been installed in June, 1977, or only a part of it had been installed in the second week of June, 1977. The report was sub mitted by an objective, independent party who could not said to be an i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....int. It is also irrelevant as to whether the assessee could have claimed investment allowance and depreciation in the subsequent year. All these considerations are not material. If the fact is which on the appreciation of evidence we think it to do so, that the assessee did not even install the aforesaid machinery in the year under consideration, then it could not claim investment allowance and depreciation on the said machinery in the year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78.' The above findings of the Tribunal are not final, which is apparent from the facts that the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has accepted the assessee's petition under section 256(2) and has directed the Tribunal to refer the two questions of la....