Itxa/782/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. M/S Lord Krishna Bank Ltd

sbw *1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.782 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax 2..Appellant-Versus-HDFC Bank Ltd...Respondent ..Respondent ........... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Counsel, with Mr. A. K. Jasani for the Respondents. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A. K. MENON, JJ. DATE :- 9[th] OCTOBER, 2014 P.C.: 1]Leave to amend to correct the name of the Respondent-Assessee from M/s. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. to HDFC Bank Ltd. The amendment be carried out during the course of the day. Fresh verification dispensed with. 2]This Appeal of the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, and to the limited extent of deletion of penalty. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the Revenue in support of this Appeal, submits that the Tribunal's order dated 24[th] June, 2011 raises substantial question of law and as formulated 1/3 at page 3 of the paper book. The Tribunal ignores the fact that the claim of depreciation on certain assets which did not exist, is patently bogus and, therefore, the penalty was imposed and the deletion thereof was not justified. 3]Similarly, the penalty on addition of Rs.33,22,018/- being lease depreciation and lease equalization has been erroneously deleted because the claim for lease equalization charges was in contravention of the Income Tax Act. It was pointed out as to how same could not be said to be debatable, and there was no disclosure made by the Assessee. For these reasons, this Appeal be entertained and admitted. 4]We do not agree. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal on these two issues, we do not find any merit in this Appeal. The finding of fact at page 6 and 7 and which cannot be termed as perverse is that depreciation in investment claimed at Rs.69 lakhs has been found to have been raised and there was material in that behalf. The printed audited accounts have been referred and in such circumstances, the Assessing Officer could not have imposed the penalty. It may be that the Assessee did not agree with the Assessing Officer but that by itself would not enable the Assessing Officer to impose penalty. 5]In so far as the lease depreciation and lease equalization reserve is concerned, that was an issue discussed in the Assessee's own case and in Quantum Proceedings. The Assessee was claiming the same at a later stage but the issue was debatable. In such circumstances, both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal rightly deleted the penalty. The Tribunal's order has been appealed only in part and the Revenue has accepted the other part. In such circumstances, all the more, this Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (A. K. MENON, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) wadhwa 3/3