Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2010 (10) TMI 1200 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Office Premises
2. Confirmation of Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Summary:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Office Premises:

The assessee claimed depreciation on Flat No.104, 10th Floor, Somerset House, Mumbai, asserting it was used for business purposes. However, a survey u/s 133A revealed the premises were used solely as a residence. Statements from Mrs. Anju Bang, Director, and other company officials confirmed no business activities or storage of business documents occurred at the premises. The AO concluded the premises were never used for business, rejecting the depreciation claim. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, noting the lack of evidence supporting business use and distinguishing the case from precedents cited by the assessee. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance, emphasizing the absence of a company resolution authorizing the director's residential use of the premises and the lack of perquisite value being taxed in the director's hands.

2. Confirmation of Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c):

The assessee's claim for depreciation on the premises was disallowed based on the survey findings. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated, and the AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,03,285/-, deeming the depreciation claim a false claim. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, stating the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, noting the assessee's withdrawal of the depreciation claim only after being cornered and the lack of evidence showing authorized residential use by the director. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Dharmendra Textile Processors vs. CIT, affirming that concealment need not be willful for penalty imposition, and the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) applied.

Conclusion:

Both appeals were dismissed, with the Tribunal confirming the disallowance of depreciation and the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The order was pronounced in the open Court on October 27, 2010.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates