9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e building let out by it. The facts on record reveal that similar claim was made by the assessee in preceding assessment years as well. Further, it is seen from the materials placed before us, the return of income filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014–15 claiming depreciation was subsequently revised disallowing the depreciation. Further, in the return of income filed for the assessment y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed of ₹ 2,28,458, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) for the assessment year 2012 13. 2. Brief facts are, the assessee is a company. As stated by the Assessing Officer, it was engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting leather footwear. However, subsequently the assessee stopped its business activity and let out its business premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itiated proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. Though, the assessee filed its explanation opposing imposition of penalty, however, the Assessing Officer passed an order on 28th September 2015, imposing penalty of ₹ 2,28,458 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income. He submitted, in the return of income filed for the assessment year 2015 16, the assessee had not claimed any depreciation. Thus, he submitted, the mistake/error in claiming deprecation being bonafide, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not have been imposed. 4. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
