2010 (12) TMI 1203 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Cross appeals against penalty confirmation u/s.271(1)(c) for disallowances of brokerage expenses, foreign tour expenses, and excess depreciation claimed on machinery.

Penalty on excess depreciation claim:
The Revenue's appeal challenged the deletion of penalty on excess depreciation claim, contending that the correct rate of depreciation was debatable. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation claimed at 50% instead of the allowable 25%. However, the Tribunal held that the claim was not deliberate concealment but a genuine dispute on the correct rate. Citing the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, emphasizing that a penalty cannot be levied merely for a difference in interpretation.

Penalty on brokerage expenses:
Regarding the Assessee's appeal on penalty for disallowance of brokerage expenses, the Tribunal found that the payments to specified persons under section 40A(2)(b) were deemed excessive but not bogus. Relying on a precedent, the Tribunal ruled that disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) does not warrant a penalty for concealment, leading to the penalty deletion.

Penalty on foreign tour expenses:
In the Assessee's appeal against penalty for foreign tour expenses, the Tribunal noted the lack of evidence to substantiate the expenses. Despite the company's explanations, the Tribunal found the disallowance unjustified and directed the penalty to be deleted, emphasizing that the disallowance did not amount to concealment.

In conclusion, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Assessee's appeal was allowed, with penalties on excess depreciation and brokerage expenses deleted, and the penalty on foreign tour expenses overturned.