2013 (4) TMI 697 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Depreciation claim - Held that - there is no doubt the claim of depreciation by the assessee was wrong but the assessee has filed complete particulars qua these assets and also in the claim of depreciation in audit report and in the return of income and nothing was concealed from the Department. In such circumstances, respectfully following the decision in the case of Usha Martin Ventures Ltd. 2011 (5) TMI 895 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT , we are of the view that penalty levied by the Assessing Officer has rightly been deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for incorrect claim of depreciation.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) related to an incorrect claim of depreciation. The assessment was conducted for the assessment year 2006-07, with penalty proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The Revenue raised three grounds challenging the deletion of penalty, emphasizing the intention of the assessee in furnishing incorrect particulars willfully. The primary contention was that the claim of depreciation was inaccurate, leading to concealment of income.

During the proceedings, the assessee maintained that depreciation was claimed based on the tax audit report, with complete particulars disclosed. The counsel for the assessee relied on legal precedents, including the decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd., to argue that mere unsustainable claims in the return did not constitute inaccurate particulars warranting a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The argument focused on the absence of any finding that the details supplied by the assessee were false or incorrect, thus negating the grounds for penalty imposition.

The Tribunal, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and the High Court concurred that the claim of depreciation was incorrect but found no fault with the particulars submitted by the assessee. Drawing parallels with a similar case before the Calcutta High Court, it was established that despite the erroneous claim, complete details were provided without any intent to conceal income. The decision to delete the penalty was upheld, emphasizing that the penalty imposition was not justified given the circumstances of the case.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c). The judgment highlighted the importance of complete disclosure of particulars despite erroneous claims and reiterated that penalty imposition required more than just unsustainable claims in the return.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the issues surrounding the incorrect claim of depreciation and the subsequent deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c). It underscored the significance of complete disclosure of particulars and the absence of intent to conceal income in determining the applicability of penalties for inaccurate claims.