Itta/128/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. Taher Ali Insutries And Projects Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 128 of 2014 Date: 04.03.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Hyderabad. … Appellant And M/s. Taher Ali Industries & Projects Limited,Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 128 of 2014 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against a portion of theimpugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2013 in connection with theappeal being ITA.No.130/Hyd/2013 preferred before the learned Tribunalin relation to the assessment year 2004-05 and sought to be admitted on the following suggested question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Tribunal is correct in law in deleting the penalty despite the factthat the assessee made a wrong claim of depreciation knowing fullywell that the assets are not owned by him and not transferred by M/s.IVRCL?” We have heard Mr. Ashok, learned Senior counsel for theappellant, and gone through the relevant portion of the impugnedjudgment and order. It appears that the learned Tribunal on fact found that it is not acase of concealment of income and also it cannot be said that theassessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of the income. In view ofthe above fact finding, it is difficult for us to take a decision in theabsence of allegation of perversity. Moreover, we noticed that theTribunal has recorded the fact that the assessee claimed depreciation onplant and machinery taken on lease from M/s. IVRCL on 30.03.2001. Itis in consonance with the agreement. However, the Tribunal has notagreed with the contention of the assessee’s counsel in its appeal in quantum addition. Therefore, if the assessee claims any deduction forany reason under law and such deduction is not allowed, this cannot besaid to be concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars ofincome. The assessee thought that this income should not be added tofor taxation purpose. Therefore, entire income was disclosed withoutgiving any wrong or inaccurate particulars and the benefit allowableunder law claimed was not allowed. Learned Tribunal, in our view, has correctly appreciated the factand applied the law in deleting penalty imposed by the Revenue. Hence,we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J