Fl Smidth Minerals P. Ltd.(Since Merged With Fl Smidth Pvt. Ltd.), Chennai-103 v. The Deputy Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Chennai Circle-Ii(1),Chennai-34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.12.2017 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU TAX CASE APPEAL NO.733 OF 2017 FL Smidth Minerals P. Ltd.(since merged with FL Smidth Pvt. Ltd.), Chennai-103. ...Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Chennai Circle-II(1),Chennai-34. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 18.8.2017 made in ITA.No.1279/Mds/2014on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench,Chennai for the assessment year 2003-04 against the Order of theDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II (1),Chennai – 34, dated 10.03.2006 made in PAN/GIR NO.AAACF 1122Dfor this Assessment year 2003-04 against the Order of the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II(1), Chennai-34,dated 30.03.2010, in PAN AAACF 1122D/03-04 against the order ofThe Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) II, 121,Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34, dated16.01.2014 made in ITA.NO.411 of 2013 – 14. For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan & Mr.D.Prabhu Mukundh Arunkumar Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,JHeard both. 2. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against theorder passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench,Chennai dated 18.8.2017 made in ITA.No.1279/Mds/2014 for theassessment year 2003-04 raising the following substantialquestions of law : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "i. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal isright in law in confirming the levy ofpenalty under Section 271(1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the claimof depreciation on the let out property? ii. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal isright in law in not deleting the penaltylevied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 on account of the claim ofdepreciation on the let out property,despite the onus cast on the appellanthaving been discharged with its explanation,being genuine, reasonable and valid ? iii. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal isright in law in holding that the appellanthad furnished inaccurate particulars merelybecause the appellant had made an incorrectclaim in law ? andiv. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the omission ofthe Assessing Officer to record the reasonthat penalty proceedings are being initiatedfor furnishing of inaccurate particulars orthat for concealment of income, the penaltyorder under Section 271(1)(c) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 is liable to be quashed ?" 3. We have carefully gone through the order passed by theTribunal, more particularly paragraph 5, wherein the followingfinding has been rendered by the Tribunal : "....it is clear that the assessee, onone hand, by admitting the rental incomeunder the head income from house property,has claimed deduction of 30% of the rentalsunder Section 24(a). At the same time, ithas also claimed depreciation on the samelet out buildings under Section 32. Thus,there is a double deduction claim, which isnot permitted in the Act. Further, the factof claiming depreciation on the let outbuildings has come to the notice of theAssessing Officer only during the course ofassessment proceedings. Thus, there is a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ clear concealment of taxable income, byfurnishinginaccurateparticulars,onaccount of claiming depreciation ofRs.4,32,251/- on the let out buildings." 4. The explanation offered by the assessee - appellant wasrightly rejected by the Assessing Officer, as confirmed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. We of theview that no substantial question of law arises forconsideration in this appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ clear concealment of taxable income, byfurnishinginaccurateparticulars,onaccount of claiming depreciation ofRs.4,32,251/- on the let out buildings." 4. The explanation offered by the assessee - appellant wasrightly rejected by the Assessing Officer, as confirmed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. We of theview that no substantial question of law arises forconsideration in this appeal. 5. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// To Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Circle-II(1),Chennai-34. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-II)121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai-600 034 +1cc to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate, S.R.No.92455+1cc to Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, Advocate, S.R.No.92039 NM(CO)CS/30/01/18