9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her rate of depreciation @ 40% in the immediately preceding year was not disputed. It is also quiet natural in this computer era to prepare Depreciation chart by downloading the relevant figures from the chart of the immediately preceding year. Viewed from this angle, we are of the view that the explanation of the assessee appears to be bonafide one. It is quite possible that the depreciation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in respect of Assessment Year 200405. 2 Revenue urges the following question of law, for our consideration: Whether in law and on the facts of the instant case, was the Tribunal justified in deleting penalty u/s.271(1)(c) by holding that the explanation given by the Company was bonafide; whereas the explanation given that depreciation charts were because of the computer was a contrived ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, claiming 40% depreciation in the preceding year. As a result, the depreciation claimed in the subject Assessment Year on the basis of figures in the computer for earlier year, was inadvertent. The Assessing Officer and CIT (A) did not accept the explanation in Penalty proceedings. 5 On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 18.2.2015 allowed the Respondent's Appeal on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciation rate may escape the attention while preparing the Depreciation Chart, since the basic depreciation rate has not been changed in the Statute during the year under consideration. Hence, we are of the view that the explanation given by the assessee should be considered as bonafide one and hence Explanation 1 to sec.271(1)(c) shall apply to the same. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
