9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 330 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - claim of depreciation @100% instead of 15% - Temporary Wooden structures like interiors, glow signs etc. being Furniture & Fixture - Claim of depreciation after the compnay taken over from Erstwhile GTB upon amalgamation - Held that - CIT(A) has rightly found that in the instant case, it stood established that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, the explanation of the assessee was not found a bonafide explanation and hence, the claim of assessee that he made full and complete disclosure of facts necessary for assessment, was found false. CIT(A) after considering all the aspects of the case has rightly concluded that it was not a case where two opinions about the allowability of depreciation were possible. Therefore, we find no material on record to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the same deserves to be upheld. As a result, the appeal of the assessee has to fail. - Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the claim of depreciation on temporary wooden structures. 2. The assessee's explanation for the depreciation claim. 3. The impact of the amalgamation of Global Trust Bank (GTB) with Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC) on the depreciation claim. 4. The classification and depreciation rates applicable to the assets in question. 5. Whether the issue of depreciation rates is debatable and its impact on the penalty. 6. The legitimacy and completeness of the assessee's disclosure. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) The primary issue revolves around the confirmation of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2005-06. The penalty was levied due to the assessee's claim of 100% depreciation on temporary wooden structures, which was disallowed and restricted to 15% by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO's decision was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and the Tribunal. Issue 2: Assessee's Explanation for Depreciation Claim The assessee contended that the depreciation claim was based on the classification of assets as temporary wooden structures, which are eligible for 100% depreciation under the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee provided a detailed explanation and asserted that the classification under "furniture and fixtures" did not alter the nature of the assets. The AO, however, did not accept this explanation, leading to the imposition of the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Issue 3: Impact of Amalgamation The amalgamation of GTB with OBC was cited by the assessee as a basis for the depreciation claim. The assessee argued that post-amalgamation, the written down value (WDV) of the assets from GTB became the actual cost for OBC, as per Section 43(6) clause (c) Explanation 2(b) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed that this justified the 100% depreciation on temporary wooden structures. However, the AO and CIT(A) found that the assets had consistently been classified under "furniture and fixtures" with a 15% depreciation rate prior to the amalgamation, and this classification should continue. Issue 4: Classification and Depreciation Rates The AO and CIT(A) determined that the assets in question were part of the "furniture and fixtures" block, which had been consistently depreciated at 15% in previous years. The attempt to reclassify these assets as temporary wooden structures eligible for 100% depreciation was not accepted. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the block of assets could not be reopened and reclassified post-amalgamation. Issue 5: Debatable Nature of Depreciation Rates The assessee argued that the issue of whether the depreciation rate should be 15% or 100% was debatable and could not be a ground for penalty. However, the CIT(A) and Tribunal found that the claim was not bona fide and was contrary to the clear provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that the issue was not one where two plausible views could exist, thus justifying the penalty. Issue 6: Legitimacy and Completeness of Disclosure The assessee claimed that complete disclosure was made in the depreciation schedule and tax audit report, which was verified by auditors. The CIT(A) and Tribunal, however, found that the disclosure was not complete or accurate. The reclassification of assets and the claim for 100% depreciation were not substantiated with adequate evidence, and the explanation provided by the assessee was not found to be bona fide. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c), agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The explanation provided by the assessee was deemed neither bona fide nor substantiated by facts. The Tribunal concluded that the issue of depreciation rates was not debatable, and the claim for 100% depreciation on temporary wooden structures was not justified. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
|
