JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by J. K. Ranka J.-The instant appeal under section 260A of Incometax Act, 1961 (for short, "the IT Act"), is directed against order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, "the ITAT"), dated January 23, 2014, passed in I. T. A. No. 821/JP/2011 and pertains to assessment year 2005-06 where Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961. brief facts, as emerging on face of record are that respondent- assessee is cultural society generating creative artistic activities through programs in field of performing arts, visual arts, literature, electronic media and film, folklore, indigenous craft, etc. assessee-society was constituted as autonomous body by Government of Rajasthan, vide order dated August 11, 2003, to preserve and promote art and culture in Rajasthan and to contribute to cultural and social development of people of State. Consequent to order dated August 11, 2003, assessee-society came to be formed and was registered under Societies Registration Act, 1958, on September 19, 2003. During course of hearing before Assessing Officer (for short, "the AO"), registration certificate, memorandum of association were also placed on record. It has also been granted registration under section 12A. Prior to constitution of assessee-society, Jawahar Kala Kendra, it was managed by Government of Rajasthan. On its constitution as society, all assets and liabilities were transferred and incorporated in books of assessee-society. chairperson of assessee-society is Chief Minister of State of Rajasthan and all other members of governing body are persons of eminence. On transfer of assets in its books of account, assessee- society recorded value of land of Jawahar Kala Kendra at Rs. 42.62 crores and building at Rs. 9.05 crores in its books of account as on August 1, 2004. short controversy involved in instant appeal is that assessee claimed depreciation for first time during previous year relevant to year under appeal stating that assets were transferred to it by Government of Rajasthan on August 11, 2003, and since then assesseesociety started functioning independently with effect from August 1, 2004, and, accordingly, depreciation was claimed on assets which were transferred to it and it was submitted by respondent-assessee that at least on and from August 1, 2004, when assessee-society started functioning independently, then depreciation is allowable. However, it appears that because assessee did not provide any evidence in order to prove change of ownership of building and assets from Government of Rajasthan to assessee-society and on records, title still continued to be with State of Rajasthan consequently Assessing Officer observed that since assessee-society was not owner, therefore, depreciation cannot be allowed. It appears from order of penalty passed by Assessing Officer that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Jaipur (for short, "CIT(A)"), partly allowed claim of depreciation at Rs. 28,30,694 as against total claim of Rs. 1,90,31,645 and that it disallowed claim of depreciation to extent of Rs. 1,62,00,951, it appears that neither Revenue nor assessee-society challenged said disallowance/allowance of depreciation by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in further appeal. It is noticed that penalty under section 271(1)(c) stands imposed on account of depreciation which was disallowed by learned Assessing Officer and upheld in further appeal before appellate authority on Rs. 1,62,00,951. According to Assessing Officer assessee concealed particulars of income. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in appeal sustained penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Act by observing that wrong/excessive and prima facie inadmissible claim of depreciation was made and since there was no ownership with assessee, therefore, depreciation could not have been claimed by assessee and thus he sustained penalty under section 271(1)(c). assessee carried matter in further appeal before Tribunal who by impugned order has deleted penalty and allowed relief as aforesaid by observing that admittedly assets were brought into books of account and details of all assets were provided and therefore it cannot be said that depreciation was claimed wrongly by assessee so as to be subjected that depreciation was claimed wrongly by assessee so as to be subjected with penalty under section 271(1)(c) and, accordingly, deleted penalty. learned counsel for Revenue contended that Tribunal has gone wrong in deleting penalty as assets brought in by assessee, were never owned by assessee as assessee did not possess title deed and unless and until it possesses title deed or assessee becomes owner, depreciation cannot be claimed and admittedly in view of this fact there was wrong claim or claim which was patently inadmissible, therefore, assessee was not at all entitled for depreciation and even disallowance of depreciation was not challenged further and attained finality and on these findings, claim of depreciation was held to be inappropriate/inadmissible and, therefore, Assessing Officer rightly imposed penalty which was sustained by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Tribunal by deleting penalty is unjustified, thus he contended that order of Tribunal is perverse and substantial question of law arise out of order of Tribunal. We have considered arguments advanced by counsel for appellant and have perused impugned order as well as further order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In our view, Tribunal has rightly deleted penalty for reason that though claim was disallowed by Assessing Officer, thereafter, partly allowed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and further not pressed by assessee but fact remains that assessee-society was constituted as autonomous body by order dated August 11, 2003, issued by Governor of Rajasthan to preserve and promote art and culture of Rajasthan and to contribute to social and cultural development of people of State. It is also admitted fact that subsequent to said order of Governor of Rajasthan, assessee-society came to be formed and was registered under Societies Registration Act, 1958, and Commissioner of Income-tax has also granted registration under section 12A to assessee-society. It is also admitted fact and which has not disputed by Revenue that possession over property is being enjoyed by assesseerespondent and no claim of reclaiming assets have been made by State Government subsequent to transfer of assets to assessee-society. In our view, merely because title has not been transferred or properties not registered in name of assessee under Indian Registration Act, depreciation cannot be disallowed. Admittedly, possession and user is of assessee. It would be appropriate to mention that this court in CIT v. Jawahar Kala Kendra (the present assessee), vide order dated January 3, 2014 in DB Income Tax Appeal No. 121 of 2012-since reported in [2014] 362 ITR 515 (Raj) had upheld finding of Tribunal for allowing depreciation to respondent-assessee in assessment year 2007-08 and in aforesaid order, this court has relied upon judgment of hon'ble apex court in case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC); Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [2011] 238 CTR 113; [2012] 341 ITR 467 (Delhi) Punjab and Haryana High Court, in case of CIT v. Metalman Auto P. Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 434 (P&H) and after relying upon said judgments ultimately observed as under (page 522 of 362 ITR): "In our view, on face of record, we are of clear opinion that assessee-society had rightly been allowed depreciation by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, as assessee- society became owner of said assets and was actually using property in its own right as owner on and from date of order of Governor and formation of society." In view of what we have held in assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08, claim of depreciation was allowable and as such it cannot be said that claim made by assessee was wrong or inadmissible since beginning. Merely because assessee did not challenge further, is no reason to come to conclusion that assessee is to be visited with penalty. In so far as assessee is concerned when all facts and details of assets were before Assessing Officer then it cannot be said that assessee concealed particulars of income. In our view, Tribunal has decided issue after appreciation of evidence on record and facts found on record that assets in question were duly disclosed and assessee neither concealed income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. We do not find any infirmity or perversity in order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal so as to call for any interference of this Court. In our view, no substantial question of law arises or is required to be considered. Consequently, appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed in limine. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawahar Kala Kendra