9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co-ordinate Bench if the disallowance on depreciation on investment is sustained then the Revenue will be at liberty to again impose the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition sustained. - ITA No. 2715/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2017 - Shri S. S. Godara, JM and Shri Manish Borad, AM. For The Appellant : Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr.DR For The Respondent : Shri S. N. Divetia, AR ORDER PER Manish Borad, Accountant Member . This appeal of Revenue for Asst. Year 2008-09 is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-XI, Ahmedabad, dated 17.09.2013 vide appeal no.CIT(A)-XI/117/ACIT Cir.6/12-13, arising out of order u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the Act) framed on 27.06.2012 by ACIT, Cir.6, Ahmedabad. Fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on gratuity payment of ₹ 3,15,933/- ii) Disallowance on depreciation on investment of ₹ 45,49,019/- The Co-ordinate Bench vide its appellate order dated 12.09.2014 deleted the disallowance of ₹ 3,15,933/- and as regards the second disallowance of depreciation on investment of ₹ 45,49,019/- issue was remitted back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh. 3. On the other hand after the order of ld. CIT(A) on quantum addition penalty proceedings were initiated and on the addition of ₹ 48,64,950/- confirmed by ld. CIT(A) penalty @ 100% of tax was levied at ₹ 15,03,269/-. 4. Aggrieved against the order of Assessing Officer imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, assessee went in appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al forums. The courts have held that where the issue involved is of debatable nature and the claim made by the assessee is bona fide, then no concealment penalty is leviable in such cases. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of GEETA PRINTS (P) LTD. vsi ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2012) 247 CTR (Guj) 620. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 3221TR158(SC). In view of above discussions, I hold that the concealment penalty on disallowance of investment depreciation is not justifiable and deserves to be deleted. 5. Aggrieved, revenue is now in appeal before us. 6. Ld. Departmental Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t placed any material on record to controvert the submissions of the Assessee. Further Revenue has also not placed any material on record to show that Assessee has claimed the deduction of expenses when the amount was placed with LIC . In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the Assessee is entitled to deduction in the year under review and we therefore delete the addition made by the A.O. Thus this ground of Assessee is allowed. 9. Whereas the issue relating to disallowance of depreciation on investment of ₹ 45,49,019/- was set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh by observing as follows :- 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
