Commissioner of Income-tax v. IndusInd Bank Ltd
[Citation -2014-LL-0924-75]

Citation 2014-LL-0924-75
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax
Respondent Name IndusInd Bank Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 24/09/2014
Assessment Year 2001-02
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags disallowance of depreciation • settlement commission • lease transaction
Bot Summary: In paragraph 5.2 of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, it has been held that there is disallowance of depreciation made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order for the assessment year in question, namely, 2001-02. That is with reference to the lease transactions entered by the assessee during the assessment year 1995-96. The assessee persisted and claimed depreciation in the assessment year in question as well. The Commissioner of Income-tax as also the Tribunal found that there is no concealment of particulars of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for the assessment year. The argument of Mr. Vimal Gupta is that when such was the stand of the Department, the assessee approached the Settlement Commission during some assessment years and accepted the order of the Settlement Commission. There was no concealment nor the particulars have been termed as inaccurate and for the subject assessment year. Pertinently, it has been deleted also qua other claims but the Revenue raised deletion of penalty on lease transaction as the only substantial question of law.


JUDGMENT We have heard Mr. Vimal Gupta, learned senior counsel, appearing for Revenue in support of this appeal. We have heard Mr. Shah, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. With their assistance, we have gone through concurrent findings on point of deletion of penalty. In paragraph 5.2 of order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), it has been held that there is disallowance of depreciation made by Assessing Officer in assessment order for assessment year in question, namely, 2001-02. That is with reference to lease transactions entered by assessee during assessment year 1995-96. claim that these are genuine transactions and made by assessee was not accepted by Revenue. However, assessee persisted and claimed depreciation in assessment year in question as well. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as also Tribunal found that there is no concealment of particulars of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for assessment year. argument of Mr. Vimal Gupta is that when such was stand of Department, assessee approached Settlement Commission during some assessment years and accepted order of Settlement Commission. However, in present assessment year, it raises very claim and, therefore, Commissioner's findings could not have been endorsed by Tribunal and this is substantial question of law particularly when it failed to assign independent reasons of its own. We do not find any merit in this contention because in given facts only conclusion that has been reached is that all particulars were available with Department-Revenue. There was no concealment nor particulars have been termed as inaccurate and for subject assessment year. It is on these findings that penalty has been deleted. Pertinently, it has been deleted also qua other claims but Revenue raised deletion of penalty on lease transaction as only substantial question of law. For all these reasons, we do not find that Tribunal's order is either perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on face of record. There is no merit in appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. IndusInd Bank Ltd
Report Error