2012 (12) TMI 87 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act - alleged that under Rule 5(2) of the IT Rules furnishing of a certificate from the competent authority in respect of pant & machinery, (in this case moulds) to qualify for depreciation @ 40% was necessary and since the assessee was unable to furnish & comply with the said requirement ,the depreciation on such assets is restricted to 25% only Held that - Assessee cannot be charged with having concealed particulars of income - requirement of Rule 5(2) have been duly complied with, as the assessee was using technology developed in an institution recognized in this behalf by the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India - technology used by the assessee is the same as was used by him in the past for manufacture of sleepers - though the addition is justified in the quantum proceedings, imposition of penalty on such addition is not warranted In favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2004-05.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was related to the disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05.

2. The AO imposed the penalty after disallowing the depreciation on moulds capitalized for a specific unit, restricting it to 25% instead of the claimed 40%. The AO held that a certificate from the competent authority was necessary under Rule 5(2) of the IT Rules for claiming depreciation at an accelerated rate of 40%, which the assessee failed to furnish.

3. The assessee contended that they were entitled to claim accelerated depreciation at 40% under Rule 5(2) as they were using technology from an institution recognized by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India. The assessee had a certificate issued by the Government of India, which expired after three years, and thus was not filed along with the return of income.

4. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, stating that the assessee failed to establish bonafides as they did not apply for the required certificate. However, the CIT(A) acknowledged that accelerated depreciation could be claimed on the opening Written Down Value (WDV) of the block of assets. The excess claim of depreciation was calculated at Rs. 12,17,616.

5. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, concluded that the assessee had complied with the requirements of Rule 5(2) and had a bonafide belief in claiming the depreciation. The Tribunal held that while the addition of income was justified in the quantum proceedings, imposing a penalty was not warranted. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the AO was canceled, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.