The Gujarat High Court in the case The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Ahmedabad Versus Axis Bank Ltd observed and has held that the department has failed for establishing that being the concealment of particulars of the income of the assessee, the Axis Bank. Therefore, the department in the case also failed in order to establish that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.
The bench comprising of Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice D. M. Desai in the case observed and has upheld that the ruling of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ITAT, wherein it has been held by the court that the addition which is made on account of excess depreciation wherein the said claims had been surrendered by the assessee itself without any prior detection by the Revenue and the excess claim had been demonstrated to have been made for bona fide reasons.
In the present case, the respondent or the assessee filed the return of income by declaring the total income. Therefore, the revised income has been filed by the assessee, while declaring the revised income. The court processed the return and case of the assessee was selected by the court for scrutiny.
Further, the court issued the notice to the assess and the reply has been filed against the notice. The Assessing Officer, AO passed the assessment order and has assessed the total income.
An appeal was preferred by the assessee before the CIT. Therefore, the court denied the appeal made by the assessee, CIT and has made the penalty order.
It has also been submitted by the assessee before the court that the false information about his or her income, according to the CIT (A), and was consequently subject to a fine.
However, an appeal was being preferred by assessee before the ITAT. Thus, the ITAT allowed the appeal made by the assessee.
On the other hand, it has also been contended by the department before the court that the ITAT erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty and that the ITAT, without ap reciting that the assessee in the case had furnished inaccurate particulars of the income in the return of income.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case held that the case was not for the levy of a penalty and that the assessee itself had to align its books of accounts with the MCA notification and also to disclose all particulars which relates to the excess claim.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.
The counsel, Advocate, Varun K. Patel appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Advocate, R.K. Patel represented the respondent.