TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tis Hazari Courts, whereby the learned ACMM held the petitioner guilty under Section 266C/277 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred 'IT'). 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the complainant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the false depreciation on land amounting to Rs. 31,80,000 was claimed in the company's balance sheet in the assessment year 2007-2008 shown under the head 'property' along with the depreciation on building and as per IT Act, land is exempted from taxation. After the assessment done by the Assessing Officer, penalty of Rs. 32,11,164/- was imposed for concealment. An appeal was preferred against this before the learned CIT(A), who deleted the impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was received by the petitioner before sending of letter dated 08.12.2009; that there is absence of mens rea in committing the said act; that the doctrine of vicarious liability is not applicable for prosecution and the impugned order is not a speaking order, therefore, needs to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the order passed by the learned ACMM is a reasoned order and does not suffer from any infirmity. 5. The submissions made by the both the parties have been heard and the records have been perused. 6. After giving careful consideration to the entire facts, it is seen that the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the fact with regard to charging of depreciati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ared before the Assesseing officer during the assessment proceedings and he has at sl.no. 1 asked to explain claim of depreciation on building. The same is already Ex.PW2/2, my sign at point 'X'. It is correct that I have filed letter dated 08.12.2009 Ex.PW2/3 in response to the hearing on 23.11.2009 duly signed by me at point 'X' wherein in para no. 7, it has been mentioned by me that depreciation on land was inadvertently charged as included by the tax auditiors. .....It is correct that no letter admitting the wrong claim upon depreciation on land was written by the accused company to the complainant department prior to 23.11.2009 for Assessemnet year 2007- 2008..." 7. The explanation given above proves that only after the order sheet en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amination that "The said mistake was detected in or about August 2008 i.e. prior to the finalization of accounts/audit report for assessment year 2008-2009 dated 20.09.2008. The said mistake was corrected in the year 2008- 2009. ......We have suto moto corrected the mistake vide letter dated 08.12.2009..." It makes it apparent that the alleged mistake was detected in the month of August by the company but only on 08.09.2009, the same was informed by the petitioner to the Assessment Officer. The petitioner had ample time to rectify its mistake by either bringing the same into the notice of the Assessing Officers soon after its detection or by filing a revised IT return to that effect. But, no action was taken by the petitioner until 08.12.20....