9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2834 - AT - Income TaxPenalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) - depreciation at a higher rate on software development - HELD THAT - In the case under consideration, the ld. CIT(A) gave a categorical finding that the assessee has made proper and full disclosure of its income and the higher percentage claimed in depreciation was only a bonafide error which was corrected by assessee. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court fully RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT supports and is applicable to the case of assessee. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in cancelling the penalty levied by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the same is hereby upheld dismissing the grounds raised by the revenue.
Issues:
- Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the AY 2009-10. - Disallowance of excess depreciation claimed by the assessee. - Assessment of total loss admitted by the assessee. Penalty Imposed u/s 271(1)(c): The appeal by revenue challenged the cancellation of the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO initiated penalty proceedings due to the assessee claiming higher depreciation rates on software and software development. The AO considered this claim as intentional and deliberate, leading to the imposition of a penalty. The assessee, however, argued that the error was a bona fide mistake and requested the penalty to be dropped. The ld. CIT(A) analyzed the issue and observed that the assessee had made a full and true disclosure of all material facts. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that the higher depreciation claim was a genuine error, and since it did not result in any taxable income, the penalty was cancelled. Disallowance of Excess Depreciation: During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed higher depreciation rates on software and software development. The AO reworked the allowable depreciation and disallowed the excess amount claimed by the assessee. The assessee did not contest this disallowance, stating it was a bona fide error. The AO then initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) based on the disallowed depreciation claim. However, the ld. CIT(A) considered the conduct of the assessee, noting that there was no concealment of information, and the error was promptly acknowledged and rectified by the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) cancelled the penalty, emphasizing the proper disclosure made by the assessee. Assessment of Total Loss: The assessee, engaged in the software business, initially filed a return of income admitting Nil income. Later, a revised return was filed, disclosing Nil income under normal provisions and a specific amount under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT). The AO assessed the total loss admitted by the assessee, including disallowance of excess depreciation. The AO's assessment led to the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c), which was later cancelled by the ld. CIT(A) based on the assessee's full disclosure and the error being a bona fide mistake. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal and affirming the cancellation of the penalty. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the reasoning behind the decision to cancel the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
