IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
   ITA 552/2012  
 . 
 ACIT        ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through : Sh. Deepak Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Harpreet Singh 
 Ajmani, Advocate. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 COSMO FILMS LTD       ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through : Nemo. 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
      10.09.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by an order of the Income Tax 
 Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 23.03.2012 in ITA No. 148/Del/2010, for 
 the Assessment Year 2006-07. It submits that the penalty of 
 Rs.19,62,495/- directed to be deleted/set-aside is not justified in the 
 circumstances. 
 . 
 The assessee had claimed carry-forward of additional depreciation 
 which was not accepted; the Assessing Officer held it to be 
 impermissible. On appeal, the assessee s appeal succeeded eventually 
 before the Tribunal. The Revenue s appeal is pending before this Court. 
 In these circumstances, the Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings 
 and imposed penalty for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate 
 particulars thereof. The CIT (Appeals), by order dated 05.10.2011 set- 
 aside the penalty,holding that since the quantum appeal had succeeded in 
 favor of the assessee, the imposition of penalty was not warranted. In 
 the circumstances, the Tribunal upheld the order. 
 . 
 We have carefully considered the materials on record. It appears 
 that the imposition of penalty on the question as to whether additional 
 depreciation claimed for the purpose of carry-forward is a debatable one. 
 Having regard to these aspects, the order of the lower authorities cannot 
 be faulted; the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and 
 is accordingly dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 
 . 
 ajk 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 48 
 .