9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department’s stand mainly on the ground that the assessee failed to produce the lorry receipts, octroi receipts and other proofs of transportation of goods to show that the machine did actually reach Jaisalmer before 30.09.2004. This is, therefore, a case where the assessee had put forth a claim making full disclosures with supporting evidence. The department, however, relied on the materials collected during the scrutiny assessment to come to the conclusion that the commissioning would not have been over before 30.09.2004. The Tribunal was correctly of the opinion that this would not give rise to penalty proceedings. Tax appeal is, therefore, dismissed. - Tax Appeal No. 515 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2017 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty made following observations: 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below in quantum assessment and penalty proceedings. The limited issue that arises for determination is whether in the facts of the case, reduction of claim of depreciation by 50% on wind- mill calls for imposition of penalty towards such excessive claim or not. As noted in the earlier paras, the claim of depreciation of the assessee was scaled down to 50% by AO on the ground that the wind-mill has been installed after 30/09/2004 and accordingly was put to use for less than 180 days. The CIT(A) allowed the full claim of the assessee in quantum appeal. The ITAT again restored the order of the AO. Ostensibly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee cannot be entirely disproved merely on the ground that ITAT in quantum assessment has agreed with the action of the AO. The order of the CIT(A) on facts in quantum assessment, in our view, is a strong mitigating circumstance in favour of the assessee. We simultaneously note that the assessee has sought to explain by way of evidences as noted in aforesaid paras that actual generation of electricity of 402 units has been shown for the month of September-2004. The invoices of the supplier of the machinery is also prior to the purported date of installation on 30/09/2004. The assessee has offered some explanation on deficit noted by the ITAT towards transportation and insurance. The explanation offered by the assessee is somewhat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der consideration suggesting that the windmills were installed and commissioned before 30.09.2004. A stand which was opposed by the Revenue. Even the Tribunal on the quantum appeal while accepting the Revenue s stand noted that windmill along with the turbine generator was dispatched for delivery from Daman by the manufacturers M/s. Suzlon Energy Ltd. on 25.09.2004. The same had to be delivered to Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. The Tribunal accepted the department s stand mainly on the ground that the assessee failed to produce the lorry receipts, octroi receipts and other proofs of transportation of goods to show that the machine did actually reach Jaisalmer before 30.09.2004. 5. This is, therefore, a case where the assessee had put forth a clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
