9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed for the purpose assessee's business and attempts made by assessee showed contrary and the same were indicative of a frivolous claim, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable - The attempts made by the assessee are indicative of frivolous nature of claim - On perusal of IT returns, it is proved that the property was not put to use during the relevant assessment year - The order of CIT(A) is set aside and the action of AO in levying penalty was confirmed - Decided in favour of Revenue. - ITA No. 8030/M/10 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2013 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao And Shri Sanjay Garg,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri V. C. Shah, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Ashok Suri, D.R. ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The Revenue has prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is thus in appeal before us. 3. We have heard the ld. representatives of both the parties and have also gone through the records. The contention of the ld. A.R. before us has been that though the assessee has failed to furnish evidence in support of its claim of use of premises for business purpose of the assessee, still the claim of depreciation by the assessee was bonafide. Merely, because the assessee's claim has been disallowed in the quantum proceedings itself is not a ground for imposition of penalty. The assessee has not concealed its income. The office premises was in fact used by the directors of the company during the day time and the several persons used to visit the premises in question as the same was put for sale. He has f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es in question was used for the business purpose of the assessee. The finding of the AO was further confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and then by the ITAT. It was also observed by the ITAT while confirming the order of the lower authorities that even the assessee had failed to submit any evidence before the Tribunal in support of its claim. 5. Even before us also, the ld. A.R. has made general claims regarding the use of property in question for the business of the assessee, but has failed to furnish even an iota of evidence in this regard. So far the aspect of bonafide claim of depreciation is concerned, we find that no such bonafide is found attributable to the conduct of the assessee in this case. The assessee was in the knowledge that the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as "Mahadeshwara Movies vs. CIT" - 144 ITR 127 (Karnataka). In our view, this contention of the ld. A.R. is again of no help to the assessee. As observed above, wrongful claim of depreciation by the assessee in this case was not a bonafide mistake rather the assessee had claimed the same as a matter of right and even tried to justify his claim of user of property up to ITAT. When the assessee has failed to prove its claim and the same has been found to be wrongfully made by the concerned authorities, then the assessee now has come with this stand of onetime bonafide mistake which cannot be accepted at this stage. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of "Morgan Finvest (P.) Ltd." (supra) has upheld the action of the AO in levying penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
