2015 (11) TMI 848 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - higher rate of depreciation on toll road claimed by assessee - Held that - The assessee has filed the details of depreciation and also the fact that it has treated the toll road as plant and has claimed a higher rate of depreciation at 25 per cent. The assessee has filed an explanation in this regard which could not be said to be not bona fide. This is a case of difference of opinion between the assessee and the Department with regard to the correct rate of depreciation allowable to the assessee on its toll road and that whether the toll road is a plant or is a building . It is not a case that the Revenue has gathered some material not disclosed by the assessee. It is a case of furnishing of correct particulars of income, but the difference was in the figure of allowance of deduction on account of depreciation due to the difference in the interpretation of the relevant provision of law. The issue that whether the toll road is a plant or a building is clearly debatable in nature. Thus no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed on a debatable issue. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 regarding penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty of &8377; 5.50 crores for inaccurate income particulars related to depreciation on a road. The assessee challenged the penalty of &8377; 3,75,00,000 for claiming higher depreciation on a toll road. The Departmental representative argued that the assessee wrongly claimed 25% depreciation as plant and machinery instead of 10% for a building, leading to penalty imposition. The assessee contended that the issue was debatable, as evidenced by appeals to the High Court, showing bona fide conduct.

2. The Tribunal found that the assessee disclosed all relevant facts during assessment, treating the toll road as "plant" for higher depreciation. The disagreement between the assessee and the Department on the correct depreciation rate for the toll road indicated a debatable issue. Despite the High Court ruling against the assessee, it did not amount to concealment of income. The Tribunal cited a High Court decision emphasizing that penalties should not be imposed on debatable issues, leading to dismissal of the Revenue's appeal for 2003-04 and allowance of the assessee's appeal for 2004-05.

3. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's conduct was bona fide, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified due to the debatable nature of the issue. The decision highlighted the importance of a genuine dispute in tax matters, as seen in the appeals to the High Court. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for 2003-04 and allowed the assessee's appeal for 2004-05, emphasizing the need for clarity on debatable tax issues to avoid unwarranted penalties.