TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case and in law, the penalty of Rs. 284500/- levied by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is not sustainable and is liable to be cancelled/deleted." 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee declared an income of Rs. 3,98,400/- from salary and business loss of current year amounting to Rs. 3,00,64,271/- to be carried forward. The case was selected for scrutiny after issuance of notice u/s 143(2) along with notice 142(1) and questionnaire etc. As a result of which an addition of Rs. 4,60,160/- was made by the AO . The relevant facts which led to the addition being made are extracted from the assessment order hereunder: 3. "The assessee is in generation of electricity through wind mills. As per purchase invoices in the nam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of furnishing of inaccurate particulars was also not accepted. The AO in the penalty proceedings held that the assessee had deliberately and wrongly claimed depreciation on the amount of Rs. 4,60,160/- as a result of which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed. 4. In appeal before the CIT(A) the said action was confirmed. Aggrieved by this the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR inviting attention to the specific finding of the AO in the assessment proceedings contended that the claim of depreciation was based on sale deeds which admittedly did not provide separate cost of land and separate cost of Wind Mills. This it was submitted is an admitted fact. Accordingly, it was his submission that the present case cannot be sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd and Wind Mills was not provided it cannot be said that the assessee made a false claim. This explanation it was contended based on the judicial precedent as considered by the Apex Court in Reliance Petro Products and PWC has wrongly been rejected. Reliance was also placed on the order dated 26th October, 2012 of the coordinate bench in ITA No. 463/Del/2011 in the case of Vasu Dev Pahwa vs. ACIT, wherein more or less considering identical facts relying on CIT vs. Barcardi Martini India Limited, 288 ITR 585 and CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). Referring to these it was submitted that the penalty order was quashed holding that all necessary facts were disclosed by the assessee as such it could not be sai....