Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 742 - ITAT AHMEDABADPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - claim of depreciation at the rate of 100% on centering material - Held that:- AO has demonstrated as to how the claim of the assessee was factually incorrect. In other words, he has demonstrated that it was a false claim. He made reference that originally the item was purchased by P.C. Snehal Construction Company and not the assessee. Thus, the disallowance was not made merely on the basis of difference of opinion between the assessee and the AO. FAA has made reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communications [2010 (5) TMI 34 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] for holding that the penalty required to be imposed upon the assessee. The assessee nowhere rendered an explanation that what has operated in his mind while filing the return for claiming depreciation at the rate of 100%. The provision of allowing 100% depreciation on the items valued less than ₹ 5,000/- has been omitted from the statute book by Finance Act, 1995 w.ef. 1.4.1996. Thus, there were two fallacies, viz. (i) in spite of non-availability of depreciation by virtue of amendment carried out in the Act, the assessee had made out a claim, and (ii) the AO has demonstrated that its claim was not factually admissible. The cases laws referred by the assessee are not applicable on the given facts of the case. Therefore, it is of the view that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly confirmed penalty upon the assessee - Decided against assessee.
|