9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not exigible – the order of the CIT(A) reversed – Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 3023/Mum/2006 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2014 - Shri P. M. Jagtap And Shri Vivek Varma,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri H. P. Mahajani Shri D. S. Mainkar For the Respondent : Ms. Sonia Kumar ORDER Per Vivek Varma, JM: The appeal arises from the order of CIT(A) -23, Mumbai, dated 08.03.2006, wherein, the assessee has taken the following ground: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty invoked u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 2,27,90,773/- on account of disallowance of depreciation on leased assets. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has neither con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the ITAT, though, it was primarily done, taking the view that the issue was debatable. As per the undisputed history upto assessment year 1999-2000, the issue has seen the quietus. In any case, the issue/facts involved in the current year as well as in the assessment year 2001-02, are identical and since the issue is debatable, penalty should be deleted. The AR further pointed out that assessee's own case on the same issue has been admitted by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ITA no. 760/2012, order dated 05.03.2013, wherein the following question had been raised, the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, is as under, "P.C:- Heard. 2 Admit on the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and in circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court, the decision of the coordinate Bench gathers much relevance where it was held in ITA No. 4040/Mum/2007 (copy attached) at page 5 para 11, "... In so far as depreciation claim is concerned, we find that it is a legal claim made by the assessee and even the same claim was made in the earlier years. The CIT(A) gave a finding that the assessee neither concealed its income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income and the claim is continuous one," 10. As mentioned earlier, the issue has been dealt with in the cases cited before us, one of the case, where both of us were party, i.e. in the case of DCB Ltd vs DCIT, ITA No. 3006/Mum/2001 and connected appeals had held that, "... After having examined all the transactions which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
