Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd - 2019-LL-0213-41

Citation	2019-LL-0213-41
Appellant Name	Commissioner of Income-tax
Respondent Name	Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	13/02/2019
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	waiver of penalty • power plant • bona fide claim • depreciation claim
Bot Summary:	2 The issue pertains to the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Appeal, 1961. 3 The facts on record would suggest that the assessee had installed power plant. On the boiler which was the part of the power plant, the assessee had claimed depreciation of 100 of normal rate which came to 6.52 Crores. The A.O. was of the opinion that the boiler was not put to use for more than 180 days of the year and that the assessee was entitled to only 50 of the depreciation claimed. 4 We find that admittedly the assessee had installed the boiler on 31st August 1992 and turbine was thereafter installed and commissioned in November 1992. 5 It can thus be seen that the assessee had placed full facts before the A.O. and made bona-fide claim. Merely because, upon appreciation of such facts, the A.O. came to the conclusion that the assessee had not put the boiler to use for a period for excess of 180 days and was not entitled to depreciation at full rate, Pg 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2019 11:10:50 ::: 8.itxa.1244.2017.db.

IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1244 OF 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax ...Appellant vs Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. ...Respondent. ..... Mr Suresh Kumar for Appellant. Mr Nitesh Joshi I/b Atul Jasani for Respondent in all appeals. ..... CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ. FEBRUARY 13, 2019. P.C. : appeal is filed by Revenue challenging Judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. following question is presented for our consideration- (a) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT was right in deleting penalty of Rs.3,37,53,700/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of Act without deciding issue on merits but by just relying on decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Liquid Investment & Trading Co. in ITXA 240 of 2009 dated 05.10.2010. 2 issue pertains to penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Appeal, 1961 ("IT Act" for short). Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ("CIT(A)" for short) had allowed appeal and Tribunal by impugned Judgment upheld such order. 3 facts on record would suggest that assessee had installed power plant. On boiler which was part of power plant, assessee had claimed depreciation of 100 % of normal rate which came to 6.52 Crores (rounded off). A.O. was of opinion that boiler was not put to use for more than 180 days of year and that, therefore, assessee was entitled to only 50 % of depreciation claimed. This was sole ground of addition which led A.O. to impose penalty. 4 We find that admittedly assessee had installed boiler on 31st August 1992 and turbine was thereafter installed and commissioned in November 1992. It was on account of these facts that A.O. held that assessee was not entitled to depreciation for entire year. 5 It can thus be seen that assessee had placed full facts before A.O. and made bona-fide claim. Merely because, upon appreciation of such facts, A.O. came to conclusion that assessee had not put boiler to use for period for excess of 180 days and was, therefore, not entitled to depreciation at full rate, Pg 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2019 11:10:50 ::: 8.itxa.1244.2017.db.doc would not give rise to penalty proceedings. No question of law arises. Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd

Metadata

Judgment