JUDGMENT : Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The appellant-revenue has filed the instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dated 03.08.2016, Annexure A.5, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (in short, “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 164(CHD)/2015, for the assessment year 2008-09, claiming following substantial questions of law:- (ii) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in deleting the penalty of Rs. 31,00,000/- including the penalty of Rs. 14,24,600/- levied on account of malafide claim of interest made by the assessee without maintenance of proper books of account and there being no basis for claim of interest against presumptive profits? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in deleting the penalty of Rs. 31,00,000/- including the penalty of Rs. 16,75,400/- levied on account of malafide claim of depreciation made by the assessee without maintenance of proper books of account and there being no basis for claim of excess depreciation in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication Private Limited (327 ITR 510)?” 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The respondent-assessee is a Government Contractor, engaged in road carpeting work. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 30.09.2008 declaring an income of Rs. 54,66,870/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, on 29.11.2010, Annexure A.1 at an assessed income of Rs. 1,52,12,800/- after making certain additions on account of disallowance of interest, short term capital loss, depreciation claimed at higher rate and depreciation on un-produced bills like mobile phone and laboratories equipment etc. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were also initiated. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 25.08.2011, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee had declared 10% profit rate and if interest was allowed as deduction, the net profit rate will get reduced substantially and hence the interest was not allowable as per the law laid down by this Court in Girdhari Lal Vs. CIT(A) and another, (2002) 256 ITR 318. CIT(A) and another, (2002) 256 ITR 318. It was concluded that the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed interest claimed by the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income vide order dated 25.03.2013, Annexure A.3. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 24.11.2014, Annexure A.4, CIT(A) deleted the penalty on the basis that the grounds taken by the assessee were debatable. Not satisfied with the order, the department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 03.08.2016, Annexure A.5, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the department holding that the assessee had made bonafide claim. The disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference of opinion and not on account of detection of any concealment of income. Hence, the instant appeal by the appellant-revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. 4. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. It was observed by the CIT(A) that regarding disallowance of interest claimed out of net profits, though the same was not allowable in view of decision of the High Court in the case of Girdhari Lal’s case (supra) whereas the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Bhawan Va Path Nirman (Bohra) & Co. (No.1), (2002) 258 ITR 431, had dismissed the appeal of the department on the issue of disallowance of interest. Thus, it was observed by CIT(A) that the issue being debatable as two views were possible regarding allow-ability of interest in cases where profit had been declared on presumptive basis, penalty for concealment could not be levied. Hence penalty levied on addition of interest of Rs. 42,22,678 was cancelled. With regard to penalty levied on disallowance of depreciation, it was observed that the assessee was being allowed depreciation on these assets i.e. commercial vehicles at the rate of 40% in the earlier years and in the assessment year 2008-09, when the Assessing Officer differed, the assessee furnished a revised depreciation chart and offered the amount for taxation. The Assessing Officer had questioned the assessee regarding rate of depreciation only on the basis of information filed by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be concluded that there was any intention to conceal the income. The Assessing Officer had questioned the assessee regarding rate of depreciation only on the basis of information filed by the assessee and therefore, it cannot be concluded that there was any intention to conceal the income. The claim made by the assessee was found to be bonafide since he had been allowed depreciation at the higher rates in the previous years. Accordingly, it was held by the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer was not right in levying penalty on this issue and the same was cancelled. Thus, it was concluded by the CIT(A) that it was neither a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income nor of concealment of income. The findings recorded by the CIT(A) were upheld by the Tribunal. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- “5. After considering the rival submissions and going through the records, we find that learned CIT(A) has rightly held that it is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income for the purpose of avoidance or evasion of tax. The assessee in this case has made bonafide claim. The disallowance on the above issues was made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference of opinion and not on account of detection of any concealment of income. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal or to show that the findings are based on misreading of evidence. Thus, no substantial question of law arises. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.