IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUR AT MADRAS DATED: 16.08.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA and THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH TAX CASE (APPEAL) No.764 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ..Appellant /Versus/ M/s.Caltex Gas India Pvt. Ltd., Gold Crest – 54 & 55, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600 017. ..Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, dated 21.01.2010 in ITA No.2269/ Mds/2008. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VIII, Chennai-600 034 made in ITA.No.92/07-08 dated 18.09.2008 and against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-I(3), Chennai, made in G.I.No./PAN-AABCC 1760H dated 27.12.2006 for the Assessment Year 2004-2005. For Appellant : Mr.K.Subramaniam (JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.) The Revenue has come forward with this appeal and the question of law sought to be raised reads as under:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1) (c) when the assessee has made bogus claim made on the depreciation on goodwill? " 2. We have perused the order of the Tribunal impugned in this appeal. The respondent/assessee stated to have claimed depreciation on goodwill. According to the appellant such claim was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rejected in the earlier assessment years. The assessee chose to make the claim for the present assessment year also. On that basis, it cannot be held that the claim itself was bogus. The question for consideration was whether penalty could be levied on such a claim which was made by the assessee on the footing that the claim should be construed as one of bogus. It is in that context the Tribunal held that the claim of depreciation was not a bogus claim. Therefore, mere disallowance would not attract levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. We are in full agreement with the conclusion of the Tribunal. We therefore, do not find any scope to entertain this appeal and no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for consideration. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. sd/- Asst.Registrar /True copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar sai To 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)VIII, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle - I(3), Chennai. 3. The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Besant Nagar, Chennai-90. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. + 1 c.c. to Mr. K. Subramaniam, Advocate. S.R.No.60857. T.C.(A) 764 OF 2010 TRM (CO) GSK 26.08.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/