2015 (9) TMI 651

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. The facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee company had claimed depreciation on land amounting to Rs. 64,50,821/-. The A.R. of the assessee filed revised depreciation chart stating that the company had wrongly claimed such depreciation on land and also filed reconciliation chart on depreciation of land and stated that depreciation on land for assessment year 2003-04 was already taxed and for the assessment year 2004-05 also, disallowance of depreciation on land has been completed. Therefore, the AO added Rs. 54,92,794/- to the income of the assessee by disallowing the claim of depreciation on land. 4. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 271(1)(c) of the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant and material on record. At the outset it was brought to my notice that, as far as first two additions are concerned, on identical issues, the penalty imposed for A/Yr. 05-06 has been cancelled by the Ld. CIT(A):C-III:Kol and such cancellation was upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT. I have gone through the copies of both these orders, the details of which are given below: (1) Appeal No.71/CC-XXIII/CIT(A)/C-III/08-09 dated 08.12.2008; (2) ITA No.221/Kol/09 A.Yr. 05-06. 7. Further going through these orders I am of the opinion that the issues are identical and my Ld. Predecessor has elaborately discussed the issues and cancelled the penalty with the following observation: "The AO has practically no evidence to prove that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctfully following the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal and my predecessor, I hold that the imposition of penalty on the aforementioned 2 additions is not in accordance with the law." 9. The ld. D.R. supported the order of the AO. In support of the same, he placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-vs- Morgan Finvest (P) Ltd. [2013] 30 taxmann.com 6 (Delhi) where it was held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was leviable on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee, where the assessee claimed depreciation in respect of property on the ground that it was used for business purposes and the cost of land was included in the claim of depreciation, though no depreciation was allo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee's own case, relied on by him, for deleting the levy of penalty was varied in appeal by any higher forum. The Ld. DR has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Morgan Finvest (P) Ltd. (supra) and Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (supra). We find that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-vs- Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 230 ITR (SC) 320. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). It is, thus, confirmed and ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 12. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 14 days, for which the assessee has filed a condonation petition. At the time of....