TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities that the assessee has, in fact, concealed the fact relating to claim of depreciation allowance beyond any doubt. The Revenue Authorities have determined the lower claim of depreciation eligible to assessee on the basis of reappreciation of existing facts. In order to attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. The disallowance of certain expenditure on estimated basis on some notional basis is neither the concealment of income particulars of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars as such. While the claim towards expenditure may not be found acceptable in quantum procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2012-13. 2. As per its grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs.91,097/-. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, non appeared for the Assessee. The matter was accordingly proceeded ex-parte in the absence of the assessee. On perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we observe that the penalty has been imposed on account of disallowance of alleged incorrect claim by way of excess depreciation on Furnace Rs.39265/-, excess depreciation on pollution equipments Rs.2,40,995/- and disallowance of Rs.300 under Section 14A of the Act. It is simultaneously noticed that the assessee has contended before lower authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e concealment of income particulars of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars as such. 5. Needless to say, to invoke Section 271(1)(c), the entirety of circumstances must reasonable point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represents income and the assessee has concealed the particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. As noted, the quantum addition has been confirmed on the premise that the assessee is not eligible for higher rate of depreciation in the facts of the case. It is not the case of the Revenue authorities that the assessee has, in fact, concealed the fact relating to claim of depreciation allowance beyond any doubt. The Revenue Authorities have determined the lower claim of depreciation eligible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 271(1)(c) is not leviable for ad hoc disallowance made on estimated basis in the absence of any element of falsity per se. It was observed that in the absence of any finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there is no question of inviting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was further observed that a mere making of claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. A variance in depreciation claim made in the return does not thus tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars per se. 8. In view of the aforesaid deliberations, the impugned order of the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
