TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respectively are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Since the identical issue of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is involved in both these appeals these are being disposed of with this consolidated order. 2. The grounds of appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2003-04 are as under : "1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is erroneous and contrary to facts and law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of Rs. 5.50 crores ignoring that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) are attracted in this case as the asses see....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the assessee has claimed depreciation at 25 per cent. under the head "plant and machinery" treating toll road as the plant although the depreciation was allowable at 10 per cent. only as it was applicable to a "building". He submitted that the assessee has taken the matter in quantum case to the hon'ble High Court and the hon'ble High Court has decided the case against the assessee and held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation at 10 per cent. on toll road and not 25 per cent. as claimed by the assessee. The learned Departmental representative referred to the relevant portion of the assessment order as well as the penalty order and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad was admitted by the hon'ble High Court being a substantial question of law in the quantum appeals of the assessee and therefore this itself shows that the issue was debatable in nature. He relied on the decision of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Liquid Investment and Trading Co. I. T. A. 240 of 2009 dated October 5, 2010 wherein it was held that the assessee has preferred an appeal under section 260A of the Act which was also admitted and substantial question of law framed and this itself shows that the issue is debatable. Regarding the assessment year 2004-05, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that though there was an amendment in the relevant provision of definition of plant but the assessment year ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctional High Court was admitted in the quantum case of the assessee for the relevant assessment years. Although the issue was decided against the assessee by the hon'ble High Court and it was held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation at 10 per cent. as applicable in the case of "building" and not 25 per cent. as applicable to "plant" but it will not lead to the conclusion that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. Merely because there was an amendment and the legal position was clarified by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from assessment year 2004-05 in this regard, it does not follow that the conduct and explanation of the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05 was....