2025 (11) TMI 1677

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for M/s. Wadia Ghandy and Co. for the respondent. 2. These two appeals are filed against the common judgment and order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Bench-D (For short "the Tribunal") in cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue being ITA No. 2476/Ahd/2008 and ITA NO.2718/Ahd/2008 for Assessment Year 2002-2003 respectively. 3. The Tax Appeals were admitted vide order dated 11.06.2012 for consideration of the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in correctly appreciating the facts on record and law so as to cancel the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ? 4. Brief facts of the case are that the asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....instead of 25% claimed by the assessee. iii) Addition in respect of depreciation claimed in respect of cost of pipe lines amounting to Rs. 2,14,19,917/- iv) Disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80IB(9) made by the assessee company. 7. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.06.2007 levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 3,17,14,898/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded in respect of all additions/disallowances. 8. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the penalty in respect of addition made on deduction claimed under section 42 of the Act and disallowance of depreciation on land based platform which was restricted from 25% to 10% how....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by GSPCL. The matter is before the arbitrator as agreed upon by GSPCL and the appellant and the decision of the arbitrator is awaited and in view of that the Assessing Officer did not allow the claim of the appellant regarding depreciation. The depreciation was disallowed by the Assesseing Officer and has also been confirmed by the CIT (A) holding that these can be revisited after the decision is final. As is evident from the above facts, narrated in briefly that the claim of the appellant is debatable which is also in the knowledge of the department. Therefore to levy penalty on a debatable claim is not justified. I therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied on the disallowance made on account of depreciation on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... inaccurate particulars. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed by the assessee, because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. To attract penalty, the details supplied in the return must not be accurate, not exact or correct, not according to the truth or erroneous. Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making o a claim, which is not sustainable in law by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars....