9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim of extra-shift allowance - Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) - - - - - Dated:- 4-4-2005 - Judge(s) : D. A. MEHTA., MS. H. N. DEVANI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by D.A. Mehta J. - The following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act)", by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "A", at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c)?" The assessment year is 1978-79 and the relevant accounting period is the year ended on June 30, 1977. During the course of assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e particulars of income and was liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal has found from the facts on record that the claim for extra-shift allowance is a case of oversight and for recording this finding, the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that both before the claim of extra-shift allowance and after the claim of extra-shift allowance, the returned figure of income remained at nil. Not only that, even the assessment completed after disallowance of such extra allowance was completed at a nil figure. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has held that the assessee would not have benefited by claiming the higher depreciation by way of extra-shift allowance. Considering the scheme of the provisions, the Tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seen from para. No. 3 of the impugned order of the Tribunal which records the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, it was specifically pleaded before the Tribunal that depreciation was allowable up to the cost of plant and machinery and by virtue of the mistake committed due to oversight the assessee could not have benefited in any way by claiming depreciation at a higher rate. It is necessary to note that even if the said aspect had not been urged before the Tribunal, it was always open to the Tribunal to record its findings, in fact it was the duty of the Tribunal to arrive at a decision in accordance with the scheme envisaged by the provisions. The Tribunal having done so cannot be considered to have committed any error which wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
