The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central -3 v. Oriental Pathways ( Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd

order as to costs. ^ -Lie .^ANJIVKHANNA, J. CHANDEl^ SHEKHAR, J. AUGUST 28, 2018 tp ITA 929/2018-Hconnected

$-36,39,40,41,47,49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 929/2018 & CM No.34866/2018 Date of decision; 28^ August, 2018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate ^ versus ~ ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAQPl^ PVT. LTD..:;.^Respondent Through WITH II vi,, - ITA 932/2018 & C^M No.34867/2018 •'".i •• I.V 'rV.:' THE PR. COMMISSIONER OFTNGOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 ' ,1^ \ Appellant Through: 1^. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate S' . ] * f 1, versus , n,-?, ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAOPui)!^ Respondent Through ITA 933/2018 & CM No.34868/2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAGPUR) PVT. LTD Respondent Through Page I of 16 Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. WITH ITA 934/2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAGPUR) PVT. LTD.... Respondent , Through r , , I , - J ,;V.-,r ^i-':-'4 ITA 941/2018 & Sji:%:MCT/2018 V THE PR. COMMISSIONEt;:GF:;^^^^ - CENTRAL-3 . . Appellant ThtdVght V i;|]\/tr||^^ Bhatia, Advocate . - k; n r; versus J ^ ORIENTAL PATHWAYS |ilfeOPJE)^i^^ LTD Respondent Th - rougk \^.3- WITH T S h:'?. ITA 94fe0l8fiigM Na^lrfS/2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAGPUR) PVT. LTD Respondent Through IT A 929/2018+connected CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIVICHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL) Afore-captioned appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) in the case of Oriental Pathways (Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd. relate to Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 and arise from a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.2.2018. The impugned order upholds the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CIT(Appeals)' for short),, deleting '^the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 27 r(i)(c) of the Act. 2. The respondent/assessed,, durmg.tft^ relevant period, was mainly engaged in the business pfj deyelopment, design, financing, ' - !•' 'r' 'f| f-; procurement, engineering, constmctihii/^ and maintenance of the project highway of on build, operate and transfer basis. They werd'^entitledjio.-dbllect toll from the users to recoup the cost of reconstruction,-maintenance and operations. The respondent/assessee had claimed depreciation,..on roads @ 10% under Section 32 of the Act. This'blarnifofj the^ for depreciation was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2009-2010. 3. Subsequently, there was a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act on 10.12.2012 in case of Bakshi Group, wherein the premises of the respondent/assessee were also covered. Consequent to the said search, notice under Section 153 A was issued. In response to the said notice, the respondent/assessee had filed their u return of income, in which again depreciation @ 10% under Section 32 of the Act was claimed. 4. In the present appeal, we are not concerned with the assessment proceedings and whether or not the respondent-assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on the NH-6 constructed by them on built, operate and transfer basis. In the present case, we are concerned with whether or not the Tribunal was right in upholding the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) deleting penalty under Section 271 (l)(c) of the Act imposed by the Assessirig-"Officer. I 5. The relevant portion ofithe order by the CIT'(Appeals) reads as under;- f .y '''Y -I,,! "7. The appellant return on 29.09.2009, 959/-. The same was assesse^^^ae^ i^gti^h^/43(3) of the Act on 23.12.2011 at a loss 200/-, by making disallowance of Rs.34,12,759/- on account of preliminary expenditure. During the said a