TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 945
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned CIT (Appeals] erred in law and on facts in not considering the fact that the appellant is subject to tax audit and depreciation was claimed accordingly. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in coming to the conclusion that appellant's agreeing to disallowance of 60% instead of 50% done purely to buy peace with the department, implies concealment. 4. That the penalty of Rs. 250,000 is bad in law and be deleted." 3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of publication of business magazines. It owns a premise known as C- 35, Sector -62, Noida, U.P. A part of this premise was given on lease vide lease dt. 01.04.2006 and balance part the premises was used by the assessee company for business purposes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ablished that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income to the extent of Rs. 7,94,151/- and accordingly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act of Rs. 2,50,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a company in the business of publishing of commercial magazines for certain industries. The business is being carried on from premises located at C-35, Sector-62 Noida. These premises are partly let out and are partly being used for the business of the assessee. In the year under reference, the assessee had earned rental income from the let out part but had inadvertently clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot let-out. The assessee however in order to avoid litigation and buy peace with the department accepted the higher disallowance, especially in view of the fact that the assesee going forward had got the premises vacated and had started using the same for business purposes. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee on realizing its genuine & inadvertent mistake not only surrendered and paid tax on the excess depreciation for A.Y 2008-09 but also revised return for earlier year and paid taxes thereon. However the Assessing Officer ignored the fact that it was a genuine and inadvertent mistake and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 on the disallowance of depreciation of leased premises which was confirmed by the CIT(A) relying on the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....take was bonafide and not intentional. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- * Oxford Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-ITA No. 5100/del/2011-ITAT Delhi * Price Water House Coopers (P) Ltd. (PWC) Vs. CIT(A) Kolkata-1 (2012) Supreme Court 211 Taxman 40 * CIT(A) Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court-322 ITR 158 * DCIT Vs. M/s Societex ITAT Delhi ITA NO. 1397/Del/2012 * B. L. International Vs. ACIT New Delhi-ITA No. 1590/Del/2014 * CIT(A) Vs. Hari Machiens Ltd 311 ITR 285 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court) * Prafful Industries Pvt. Ltrd. Vs. DCIT- ITA No. 4023/Del/2016-ITAT Delhi * CIT(A) Vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (Bombay) 2012-259 CTR 383) 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the penalty order and order of the CIT(A). 7. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the premises on rent and claimed the depreciation on the same facts has been admitted by the appellant himself in the return of income filed for A.Y. 2007-08 in response to notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act. It is also seen that had it been a bonafide mistake it would not have been repeated year after year. The appellant claimed depreciation as well as deduction u/s 24 in A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 also. Therefore, there is no truth in the claim of the appellant that this mistake has happened inadvertently. The claim of the appellant was planned one and was with the intention to claim both the benefits and to evade taxes. Accordingly, the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer for claiming depreciation on the 2/3rd part of the premises is ....