2018 (4) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8-09, claiming following substantial questions of law:- (ii) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in deleting the penalty of Rs. 31,00,000/- including the penalty of Rs. 14,24,600/- levied on account of malafide claim of interest made by the assessee without maintenance of proper books of account and there being no basis for claim of interest against presumptive profits? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in deleting the penalty of Rs. 31,00,000/- including the penalty of Rs. 16,75,400/- levied on account of malafide claim of depreciation made by the assessee without maintenance of proper books of account and there being no basis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income vide order dated 25.03.2013, Annexure A.3. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 24.11.2014, Annexure A.4, CIT(A) deleted the penalty on the basis that the grounds taken by the assessee were debatable. Not satisfied with the order, the department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 03.08.2016, Annexure A.5, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the department holding that the assessee had made bonafide claim. The disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference of opinion and not on account of detectio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore, it cannot be concluded that there was any intention to conceal the income. The claim made by the assessee was found to be bonafide since he had been allowed depreciation at the higher rates in the previous years. Accordingly, it was held by the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer was not right in levying penalty on this issue and the same was cancelled. Thus, it was concluded by the CIT(A) that it was neither a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income nor of concealment of income. The findings recorded by the CIT(A) were upheld by the Tribunal. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- "5. After considering the rival submissions and going through the records, we find that learned CIT(A) has rightly held ....