Shree Bhoomika International Ltd., Gurgaon V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 354/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5063 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI G BEN CH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL M EMBER ITA NO. 354/DEL/2013 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06] SHREE BHOO M IKA INTERNATIONAL LTD C/O SHRI BASANT SHARMA 1704, BAVERLY, DLF II GURGAON, HARYANA. PAN : AAACB 6431 B VS. THE D.C . I. T . CIRCLE - 8(1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 399/DEL/2013 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06] THE D.C.I.T. CIRCLE - 8(1) NEW DELHI VS. SHREE BHOO M IKA INTERNATIONAL LTD C/O SHRI BASANT SHARMA 1704, BAVERLY, DLF II GURGAON, HARYANA. PAN : AAACB 6431 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI S.S. RANA, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.08.2017 2 ITA NOS.354 & 399/DEL/2013 ORDER PER C.M. GARG. JUDICIAL MEMBER :- THE ABOVE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.10. 2012 OF THE CIT(A)- XI, NEW DELHI RELATING TO A.Y. 2005-06. 2. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NEITHER TH E RESPONDENT ASSESSEE NOR THE LD. A.R APPEARED BEFORE US. THERE WAS ALSO NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED ON RECORD. HOWEVER, O N PERUSAL OF THE APPEAL RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THE APPEALS COULD BE D ECIDED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R. ON THE ISSUES RAISED. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEALS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 399/DEL/2013 [A.Y 2005-06] REVENUES APPEAL 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL : THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE IMPOSITIO N OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON THE ISSUE OF EXPENSES DISALLOWED AND CURRENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS. 3 ITA NOS.354 & 399/DEL/2013 4. THE LD. DR, SUPPORTING THE PENALTY ORDER SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS ABOUT THE JOB WO RK SO CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF JO B WORK DONE, HOW IT WAS PERFORMED, WHO WERE THE PARTIES AND WHAT WAS TH E MODE OF PAYMENT WAS NEVER EXPLAINED AND DISCLOSED BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGH T IN IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PLAC ED CLAIM ON JOB WORK ON THE BASIS OF BLANK STATEMENT WITHOUT CORROB ORATIVE EVIDENCE WHICH DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE CLAIM. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN LEVYING PENALTY. THE LD. DR FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT A NY LOGICAL OR VALID BASIS AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MA Y BE SET ASIDE BY RESTORING THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE A.O AND THE LD. CIT(A) AN D THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONS IDERED THE VARIOUS 4 ITA NOS.354 & 399/DEL/2013 DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE SIDES. ON CAREF UL CONSIDERATION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: AFTER CONSIDERING ALL DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, I SHAL L NOW TAKE UP THE VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE ONLY ISSUE IN TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1 TO12 IS OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS.41, 06,317/-. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ADDITIONS WERE MADE O N THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:- EXPENSES DISALLOWED RS. 4,68,880/- CURRENT LIABILITY AND PROVISION RS. 16,26,819/- DEPRECIATION RS. 1,03,08,593/- THE AO HAD DISALLOWED 20% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED A ND 20% OF CURRENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS IN THE ABSENC E OF DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT P RODUCED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS AND VOUCHERS DURING ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE THE AO HAD DISALLOWED 20% OF EXPENSES CLAIMED AND 20% CURRENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS. THE AO FURTHER DID NOT ALLOW CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.L,03,08,593/-TO THE APPELLANT STATING THAT NO DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO PROVE THAT THE PLANT AND M ACHINERY WERE PUT TO USE DURING THE YEAR. IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION BY STATING THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED B EFORE THE AO AND THAT BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALSO NO DETAILS WERE PRO DUCED. 5 ITA NOS.354 & 399/DEL/2013 I SHALL NOW DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF PENALTY IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENT ITEMS OF DISALLOWANCE. THE FIRST ADDITION TO INCOME WAS IN RESPECT OF 20% DISALLOWANCE FROM EXPENSES CLAIMED. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT ALL DETAILS ABOUT THE EXPENSES WERE AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE AS NO DETAILS ABOUT THE EXPEN SES WAS SHOWN TO THE AO. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS ON AD HOC BAS IS. IN MY VIEW THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS WITH A VIEW TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE EXPLANATION HE APPELL ANT IS BONAFIDE. THE CASE OF CIT V RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD., 322 (SC) CITED BY THE APPELLANT IS APPLICABLE TO THE FA CT OF THE CASE. THE PENALTY 27L(L)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,68,880/-. THE 2ND ADDITION TO INCOME WAS IN RESPECT OF 20% DISALLOWANCE FROM CURRENT LIABILITY AND PROVISIONS. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT ALL DETAILS ABOUT THE EXPENSES WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE AS NO DETAILS ABOUT THE EXPEN SES WERE SHOWN TO THE AO. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS ON AD HOC BAS IS. IN MY VIEW THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS WITH A VIEW TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE EXPLANATION OF THE AP PELLANT IS BONAFIDE. THE CASE OF CIT V RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD., 322 ITR 158(SC) CITED BY THE APPELLANT IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACT OF THE CASE. THE PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,60,397/-. THE 3RD ADDITION TO INCOME WAS IN RESPECT OF DISALL OWANCE OF THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. NO DETAI LS WERE FILED TO SHOW THAT THE PLANT AND MACHINERY WERE PUT TO USE D URING THE YEAR. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PROVE THAT THE DEPREC ATION CLAIMED 6 ITA NOS.354 & 399/DEL/2013 WAS CORRECTLY CLAIMED. IN MY VIEW ON THIS ISSUE, TH E APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITH A V IEW TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPEL LANT IS NOT BONAFIDE. THE PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) ON THIS AMOUNT OF RS.1,03,08,593/- IS CONFIRMED. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AS PER THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, FIRST ADDITION WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF 20% DISALLOWANCE OF FROM EXPENSES CLAIMED AND ALL DETAILS OF EXPENSES WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE ON ADHOC BASIS AS NO DETAILS ABOUT EXPENSES WERE SHOWN TO HIM. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD . CIT(A) PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD, 322 ITR 158 , WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PARTICULARS ' USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND T O BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY O F FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASS ESSEE TO 7 ITA NOS.354 & 399/DEL/2013 PENALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISH ING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHIN G WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAU SE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PA RTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE I NACCURATE, THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY, THE DETA ILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRE CT, NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. S UCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS. 8. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE PENALTY AS ADHOC DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE ALLEGATION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME WITH A VIEW TO CONCEAL INCOME. THEREFORE, I N THIS 8 ITA NOS.354 & 399/DEL/2013 PART OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HENCE WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 9. REGARDING THE SECOND ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF 20% DISALLOWANCE FROM CURRENT LIABILITY AND PROVISIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BECAUSE NO DETAILS OF EXPENSE S WERE SHOWN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH RESULTED INTO ADHOC DIS ALLOWANCE. AGAIN, THE LD. CIT(A), PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LT D [SUPRA], DELETED THE PENALTY BY HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT F URNISHED INCORRECT PARTICULARS WITH A VIEW TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS QUITE COR RECT AND THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY OR PERVERSITY THEREIN. THUS, WE ARE UNAB LE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE WELL REASONED ORDER. HENCE WE UPHOLD THE SAME. FINALLY, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ADHOC DISALLOWANCE FROM THE CURRENT LIABILITIES AND PROVI SIONS. 9 ITA NOS.354 & 399/DEL/2013 10. IN SO FAR AS THE THIRD ADDITION IS CONCERNED, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT NO DETAIL S WERE FILED TO SHOW THAT THE PLANT AND MACHINERY WERE PUT TO USE DURING THE YEAR AND THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PROVE THAT THE DEPRECIATION CLA IMED WAS CORRECT. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED T HE PENALTY BY OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITH A VIEW TO CONCEAL INCOME AND HE FOUND T HAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT BONAFIDE. ITA NO. 354/DEL/2013 [A.Y 2005-06] ASSESSEES APPEA L 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL : 1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PENALTY I MPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATIO N WAS JUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE PENA LTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10 ITA NOS.354 & 399/DEL/2013 3. THAT THE CIT(A) HAD NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THUS WAS WRONG IN COMING TO THE CONCLU SION THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT BONAFIDE. 4. THAT CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CASE LAWS H AD ARRIVED AT A WRONG CONCLUSION. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION FOR ONE OR OTHER REASO N DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 6. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) F AILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SHO WN JOB WORK RECEIPTS AT RS. 30,48,929/-. THIS ITSELF ESTABLISHE S THAT PLANT AND MACHINERY WAS USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE, 7. THAT NEITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR IN TH E PENALTY ORDER THERE ARE ANY FINDINGS THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FALSE THUS THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE AP PELLANT FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME ARE NOT BASED ON ANY COGENT REASONS. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE VERY OUTSET , WE FIND THAT FROM THE PENALTY ORDER, IT IS DISCERNIBLE THAT THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THE 11 ITA NOS.354 & 399/DEL/2013 FOLLOWING EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS: 1. EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS AND ALSO OUT OF SUN DRY CREDITORS AND EXPENSES PAYABLE ON ESTIMATE BASIS AL L SUCH EXPENSES WERE ENTIRELY RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE DULY AUDITED BY THE FIRM OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND TH E REPORT AS REQUIRED WAS FILED ALONGWITH RETURN OF INCOME. NO DISCREPANCY WAS POINTED OUT BY THEM. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECATION AS THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 32 OF THE ACT ARE F ULLY SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. THAT THE COMPANY HAD SHOWN JOB WORK RECEIPTS AT RS. 30,48,249/- HAS ITSELF ESTABLISHED THE FACT THA T THE PLANT AND MACHINERY WAS USED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. 13. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN TH E FIRST APPELLATE ORDER AT PAGES 3 TO 7 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ). WE ALSO PERUSED THE PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE SPREAD OVER 33 PAGES WHEREIN THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD . CIT(A) HAS BEEN PLACED. 12 ITA NOS.354 & 399/DEL/2013 14. THE LD. DR, SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW, SUBMITTED THAT NO DETAILS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSE E TO SHOW THAT THE PLANT AND MACHINERY WERE PUT TO USE DURING THE YEAR AND THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PROVE THAT THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED WAS B ASED ON SOUND PREMISE AND CORRECT FACTS. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT( A), WHILE CONFIRMING PENALTY, RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FURNIS HED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITH A VIEW TO CONCEAL INCOME . 15. THE LD. DR DREW OUT ATTENTION TOWARDS PARA 5 AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14.12.2007 FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUN T OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION RIGHTLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT GIVEN PROPER DETAILS OF PRODUCTION MADE DURING THE YEAR TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY USED PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES FOR THE RELEVANT F.Y. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY POINTED OUT TH AT THE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM OF DEPRECATION BY FURNISHING INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED AND THEREFORE , ADDITION WAS FINALLY SUSTAINED. THUS THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 13 ITA NOS.354 & 399/DEL/2013 16. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A GENERAL EXPLANATION, AS HAS BE EN REPRODUCED ABOVE BY STATING THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY AUDITED BY THE CA AND REPORT AS REQUIRED WERE FILED ALONGWI TH RETURN OF INCOME AND NO DISCREPANCY WAS POINTED OUT. THE ASSESSEE A LSO SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECATION AS CONDITION S LAID DOWN U/S 32 OF THE ACT ARE FULLY SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. BUT T HERE IS NO EXPLANATION REGARDING THE FACT AS TO WHETHER THE PLANT AND MACH INERY WERE IN FACT, PUT TO USE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD WHICH COULD S UPPORT AND SUSTAIN THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN DU RING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT TO SHOW THAT THE PLANT AND MACHINERY WERE ACTUALLY PUT TO USE DURING THE YEAR AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T PROVE THAT DEPRECIATION WAS CORRECTLY CLAIMED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IN OUR HUMBLE AND CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AUTHORITIES BELO W WERE QUITE CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITH A VIEW TO CON CEAL INCOME. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN HE CONFIRMED T HE PENALTY ON THE THIRD ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE PENALTY 14 ITA NOS.354 & 399/DEL/2013 IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SUSTAINABLE AN D WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY AMBIGUITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE CONCLUSION D RAWN BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND HENCE WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE EFFECTIVE GROUND NOS. 6 AND 7 ARE DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AND REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.08.2017. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (C.M. GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04.08.2017 V. LAKSHMI COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT (APPEALS) 5) DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 15 ITA NOS.354 & 399/DEL/2013 DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON 03 .0 8 .2017 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 03 .0 8 .2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .0 8 .2017 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 16 ITA NOS.354 & 399/DEL/2013 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.