AMBIENCE HOSPITALITY PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 1264 / 2011HC Delhi02 December 20111 pages
For Petitioner: SATYEN SETHI
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under the explanation to Section 271(1)(c) to prove the claim was bona fide. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation on land, which is not permissible. The assessee attributed this to a bona fide error by their accounts officers. The return for the subsequent year did not claim depreciation on land.

What were the issues?

Whether a claim for depreciation on land, being a well-settled principle, constitutes a bona fide error that warrants penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 1264/2011 . . . AMBIENCE HOSPITALITY PVT LTD ..... Appellant . Through: Mr.Satyen Sethi and Mr.Arta Trana Panda, Advs. . . . versus . . . CIT ..... Respondent . Through: Mr.Deepak Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel. . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . O R D E R . 02.12.2011 . . . 1. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . (for short, the Act) impugns order dated 12th August, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) upholding the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer and reversing the order passed by the first Appellate Authority. . 2. It is not disputed that that the appellant-assessee had claimed depreciation @ 10% on land. Explanation of the assessee is that there was a mistake or error by the officers in-charge of the accounts and responsible for looking after tax laws. It is submitted that claim made was bona fide and mere rejection of a claim should not entail penalty of concealment. It is stated that the return for the next assessment year, i.e. 2008-09 was filed on 27th September, 2008 and in the said return, depreciation was not claimed on the land. . 3. It is obvious that the assessee had furnished accurate particulars in the return for assessment year 2007-08. Claim for depreciation on land was wrong. Depreciation on land cannot be claimed. This is a well settled principle, and not a debatable question/proposition. It is an accepted position, that the appellant assessee did not revise the return even when return for Assessment Year 2008-09 was filed. The explanation of the assessee that the claim was a bona fide error has been examined by the Tribunal and it was found that the assessee has not been able to discharge the onus placed under the explanation to Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. . 4. Keeping in view the factual matrix and reasoning given by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with and entertain the present appeal under Section 260 A of the Act. . 5. The appeal is dismissed. . . . SANJIV KHANNA,J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . DECEMBER 02, 2011 . Vg/NA . . . $ 46 .

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →