TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. 143(3)of the Act, on 18/12/2008, determining its income at Rs. 30. 98 crores. ITA/4428/Mum/2012: 2. Effective ground of appeal is about deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c), amounting to Rs. 21. 86 lakhs. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had claimed additional depreciation of Rs. 43. 72 lakhs u/s. 32 (ii) r. w. s. 32(iia) of the Act on the addition to the plant and machinery to the tune of Rs. 2. 18 crores, that the new plant and machinery was put to use after 30/09/2005, that the depreciation was restricted to 10% as per the second proviso to section 32 (i) of the Act. He disallowed depreciation of Rs. 21. 86 lakhs. He further found that the assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs. 16.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n inadvertent mistake in claiming additional depreciation that instead of claiming additional depreciation at the rate of 10% it had claimed depreciation at the rate of 20%, that the material facts were disclosed in the audit report wherein the date of addition of assets had been mentioned, that the auditor itself had made mistake in the audit report, that during the assessment proceedings the assessee had agreed to restrict the depreciation to 10%, that during the quantum proceedings the FAA had confirmed the addition on account of expenditure relating to increase in authorised capital for right issue, that the addition was on account of difference of opinion, that penalty was not leviable for the said addition. After considering the subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the assessee had claimed additional depreciation at the rate of 20% though the plant and machinery was used only for period of six months, that during the assessment proceedings it submitted letter to the AO to reduce the additional depreciation, that the Chartered Accountant had, in the audit report, recommended the claim of depreciation at the rate of 20%. In our opinion, considering the clear facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case of filing inaccurate particulars of income for considering the particulars of income. It was an inadvertent mistake. The assessee had acted on the advice of a professional and his advice was found not as per the ....