Anika International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

ITA 8532/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1256 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Wrong claim
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.8532/DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2015-16] M/s Anika International Pvt. Ltd. F-402, RAS Villas Mall, Saket, South Delhi, New Delhi-1100174 Vs ACIT, Circle-2(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092 PAN-AAACA5751F Assessee Revenue Assessee by Ms. Nida Sultan, CA Revenue by Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 11.10.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-I, New Delhi, dated 20.06.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Grounds of appeal reads as under:- “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in imposing a penalty under section 271(c) amounting to Rs.2,04,545/-.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that penalty in this case was levied for claim of depreciation which was disallowed as the assessee has claimed the depreciation on value of land and building combined but subsequently the depreciation on land portion was disallowed and added to the assessee’s income. In these facts, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied. On similar facts, penalty was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) in the earlier year also. 2 ITA NO.8532/DEL/2019 4. After careful considering the facts of the case and perusing the records, we find that the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd. The same is applicable fully on the facts of this case where, it was held that denial of claim of the assessee cannot ipso facto lead to the levy of penalty. Allowance and computation of correct depreciation is bounded duty of the Assessing Officer. Hence, correction of a wrong claim by the assessee in this case cannot lead to a visit by the rigors of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act upon the assessee. Hence, in our considered opinion, on the touch stone decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd. penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in this case is not leviable. Therefore, we set-aside the order of the authorities below and delete the penalty. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11 th October, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- [N.K.CHOUDHRY] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi; Dated: 11.10.2022. f{x~{tÜ? f{x~{tÜ?f{x~{tÜ? f{x~{tÜ? Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi