TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase and prejudicial to the Law. 02. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought not to have confirmed the action of the Learned Assessing Officer imposing the penalty of Rs. 16,50,000/-. The appellant has neither concealed her income nor submitted any inaccurate particulars of income. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts of the case and deserves to be deleted. 03. That any other grounds of appeal may be added/deleted or amended at the time of hearing. Therefore it is prayed that penalty as impugned U/S 271(1)(c ) of the Act by the A.O. may please be cancelled or any other suitable order as the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act was claimed by the assessee through a bonafide and inadvertent error. The assessee had disclosed and furnished true and correct particulars of its income. It was further submitted that bonafide mistake or inadvertent human error could not mean that the assessee was guilty of either furnishing of inaccurate particulars as was attempting to conceal its income. The reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs CIT [SC] 348 ITR 306. Further, it was submitted that the claim was made under the bonafide belief that such deduction was available. It was contended that the assessee disclosed and furnished the correct particulars of his income. How....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vehicles were purchased and registered on 31.03.2011. It was contended that Ld.CIT(A) himself allowed this claim in succeeding year. Moreover, vehicles were ready to use and law is well settled when the vehicles were ready to use in that event depreciation would be allowable. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs Integrated Technologies Ltd. in ITA No.530/2011. It was contended that the claim of depreciation was allowed by the Ld.CIT(A) in the case of the assessee for the succeeding year under identical facts and circumstances. It was submitted that the assessee had disclosed true and correct particulars of its income at the time of filing of its r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs CIT (supra), the penalty imposed by the AO on this issue cannot be sustained. The AO is therefore directed to delete the penalty. 8. Now, coming to the penalty confirmed in respect of addition sustained on account of disallowance of claim of depreciation. One of the averments of the assessee before the authorities below was that under the identical facts, the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim of depreciation in succeeding year. This fact is not rebutted by the Revenue. It was further contended that the assessee had disclosed and furnished true and correct particulars of its income at the time of filing of return. The assessee had not acted in defiance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited (supra) and judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565. 11. Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of authorities below. He contended that the assessee was well aware of charge. It participated in the penalty proceedings and made submissions. Now at such a belated stage, the assessee should not be allowed to raise such a plea. He contended that it is not the case of an ignorant assessee. Moreover, during the proceedings before the authorities below, no such ground or objection was raised. Hence, he prayed that the additiona....