2019 (7) TMI 641

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of income for A.Y. 2008-09 declaring total income at Rs. 2,43,00,960/-. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO inter alia made additions/disallowance on two items namely (a) under valuation of closing stock of jewellery to the extent of Rs. 44,93,791/-, (b) wrong claim of depreciation on building to the extent of Rs. 6,08,307/-. As a consequence, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) for wrongful claim on above counts and imposed penalty @ 100% on the tax evade on such concealment of income. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) without any success. 4. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. AR for the assessee referred to the assessment o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s per sale deed dated 27.09.2006. However, the AO as allowed depreciation for half year as it was assumed to be put to use for less than six months on the ground that the office/showroom was inaugurated in January 2008 and consequently put to use thereafter. The Ld. AR submitted that the claim of the assessee is not entirely wrong and the action of the Revenue is ultimately taxed neutral as depreciation of lesser figure allowed would results in consequent increase in depreciation of the equivalent amount in the years to ensue. The Ld. AR pleaded that no stringent action in the form of penalty justified for such technical defaults if any, notwithstanding ready acceptance of quantum assessment as made by the AO without litigation. 7. The Ld.....