Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR
आदेश ORDER �ी अिमत शु�ला, �या स: PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM:
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the revenue against impugned order dated 23.05.2014, passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) -16, Mumbai, in relation to the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), for the assessment year 2006-07.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee.
At the outset, the Ld. DR admitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty on the ground that the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings had allowed the assessee’s appeal and, therefore, penalty on same disallowance will not sustain.
2 यूरो �तीक इ�पात �ाइवेट �ल�मटेड M/s Euro Pratik Ispat Private Limited ITA 4885/Mum/2014 3. After considering the aforesaid fact which is culled out from the impugned order, we find that penalty has been levied on the claim of “additional depreciation” of Rs.1,27,23,266/- on the plant and machinery, which as per the AO has been acquired before 31st March, 2005 though not put to use and the provision of section 32(1)(iia) relating to additional depreciation is allowable only in cases where new machinery are installed after 31st March, 2005. Assessee’s case was that though the machineries were shown as capital-work-in-progress as on 31.03.2005, but were put to use in this financial year and hence was included in the block of assets in the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 2006-07.
The Ld. CIT(A) in para 2.3 of the impugned order has noted that, now in the quantum appeal, the Tribunal vide order dated 02.04.2014 in for the assessment year 2006-07 has held that, the assessee was entitled to claim additional deprecation @ 10%. In wake of the aforesaid fact that the issue of additional depreciation has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings, we hold that the penalty levied on such a disallowance has no legs to stand, therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is affirmed and grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th August, 2016 Sd/- Sd/- (रिमत कोचर) (अिमत शु�ला) लेखा सद�य �याईक सद�य (RAMIT KOCHAR) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 16th August, 2016