9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of blanket and linen is debatable. This claim of the assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee s claim is bonafide during the year under consideration but in A.Y. 2008-09, the assessee revised the depreciation claimed during the assessment proceedings. The assets had been disclosed by the assessee, therefore, no inaccurate particulars of income has been furnish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the last year also. 2. The sole ground of appeal is against deleting the penalty of ₹ 20,51,508/- imposed by the A.O. U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The Ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is running a Luxurious Hotel. In this case, scrutiny U/s 143(3) of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee filed its return s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by charging depreciation at higher rates by ₹ 66,39,183/- and therefore, he imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,51,508/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A), who had deleted the penalty by observing that the assessee company had claimed depreciation @ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the income or filing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld CIT(A) has relied on the various case laws cited in his order and finally directed the Assessing Officer to cancel the order levying penalty of ₹ 20,51,508/- U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. The learned D.R. vehemently supported the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer. At the ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
