2022 (10) TMI 1137 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(c) - Depreciation claim disallowed - claim of depreciation which was disallowed as the assessee has claimed the depreciation on value of land and building combined but subsequently the depreciation on land portion was disallowed and added to the assessee s income - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd. . 2010 (3) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT - The same is applicable fully on the facts of this case where, it was held that denial of claim of the assessee cannot ipso facto lead to the levy of penalty. Allowance and computation of correct depreciation is bounded duty of the Assessing Officer. Hence, correction of a wrong claim by the assessee in this case cannot lead to a visit by the rigors of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act upon the assessee. Hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in this case is not leviable. Therefore, we set-aside the order of the authorities below and delete the penalty. Appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Summary

Issues: Penalty under section 271(c) for claim of depreciation disallowed.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(c) amounting to Rs.2,04,545 for a disallowed claim of depreciation on the combined value of land and building. The penalty was levied as the depreciation on the land portion was disallowed and added to the assessee's income. The Assessing Officer upheld the penalty, citing similar circumstances from a previous year. However, the tribunal considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd., where it was held that the denial of a claim does not automatically warrant a penalty. The tribunal emphasized that the correct allowance and computation of depreciation is the Assessing Officer's duty, and a wrong claim by the assessee should not result in a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relying on this precedent, the tribunal concluded that the penalty in this case was not justified and set aside the orders of the lower authorities, thereby deleting the penalty amount.

The tribunal's decision was based on the principle that the denial of a claim does not ipso facto lead to the imposition of a penalty. The tribunal highlighted that the correct computation of depreciation is the Assessing Officer's responsibility, and the assessee correcting a wrong claim should not attract the rigors of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. By applying the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd. case, the tribunal found that the penalty in this case was not warranted. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and pronounced the order in open court on 11th October 2022.