2001 (11) TMI 43 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the issue of whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1981-82 on the assessee for claiming depreciation and investment allowance on newly installed machinery was justified.

Summary:

The High Court of Madras, in the case at hand, dealt with the claim made by the assessee for depreciation and investment allowance on newly installed machinery. The Tribunal had previously held that the claim was made bona fide, citing a precedent from V. Ramakrishna and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 149 ITR 554 (Mad), which established that the use of machinery in test production or experimental manufacture still qualified as use for the assessee's business.

The assessee had purchased a centrifugal casting machine, installed in March 1981, and commenced actual production using the machinery in November 1982 after testing it with a temporary electric connection. Initially, the assessee claimed depreciation for the assessment year 1981-82 but later withdrew the claim. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty for inaccurate particulars in the original returns, which was upheld by the Commissioner. However, the Tribunal overturned this decision, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the High Court.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim was bona fide and based on a valid legal precedent. The withdrawal of the claim did not indicate deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee initially. The Tribunal also noted that the difference of opinion between the Assessing Officer and the assessee regarding the machinery's experimental running did not warrant a penalty for furnishing incorrect particulars. Consequently, the Tribunal rightfully concluded that the penalty was not justified and set it aside.

In response to the questions raised, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1981-82. The Court found that the facts did not support the imposition of a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars, as the assessee's actions were deemed reasonable and in accordance with the law.