2017 (9) TMI 173 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - claim for full depreciation - Held that - From the materials on record, it can be seen that the assessee had put a claim for full depreciation for the year under consideration suggesting that the windmills were installed and commissioned before 30.09.2004. A stand which was opposed by the Revenue. Even the Tribunal on the quantum appeal while accepting the Revenue s stand noted that windmill along with the turbine generator was dispatched for delivery from Daman by the manufacturers M/s. Suzlon Energy Ltd. on 25.09.2004. The same had to be delivered to Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. The Tribunal accepted the department s stand mainly on the ground that the assessee failed to produce the lorry receipts, octroi receipts and other proofs of transportation of goods to show that the machine did actually reach Jaisalmer before 30.09.2004. This is, therefore, a case where the assessee had put forth a claim making full disclosures with supporting evidence. The department, however, relied on the materials collected during the scrutiny assessment to come to the conclusion that the commissioning would not have been over before 30.09.2004. The Tribunal was correctly of the opinion that this would not give rise to penalty proceedings. Tax appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on claim of depreciation.
2. Assessment of depreciation for windmill installation and commissioning for the assessment year 2005-06.

Analysis:
1. The issue revolves around the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 concerning the claim of depreciation by the respondent assessee. The Assessing Officer allowed only 50% of the depreciation claimed by the assessee for windmill installation and commissioning, asserting that the machinery was utilized for less than 180 days. The CIT(A) initially granted full depreciation, but the Tribunal restored the Assessing Officer's decision. The Tribunal, in its judgment, emphasized the need for the assessee to demonstrate bonafides to rebut the presumption of concealment under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal considered various evidences provided by the assessee, including electricity generation records and supplier invoices, to support the claim of full depreciation. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty was not justified, highlighting that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and must be supported by concrete evidence of concealment.

2. The assessment of depreciation for windmill installation and commissioning for the assessment year 2005-06 is a crucial aspect of the case. The assessee claimed full depreciation based on the assertion that the windmills were installed and commissioned before 30.09.2004. However, the Revenue disputed this claim, emphasizing that the windmill was dispatched for delivery on 25.09.2004 and had not reached its intended destination by 30.09.2004. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's stance due to the lack of conclusive evidence, such as lorry receipts and proof of transportation, to substantiate the timely commissioning of the windmill. Despite the conflicting interpretations, the Tribunal concluded that the lack of definitive proof did not warrant penalty proceedings. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the tax appeal, underscoring the importance of full disclosure and evidentiary support in tax matters to avoid penalties.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Gujarat High Court in this case highlights the significance of substantiating claims with concrete evidence in tax assessments to avoid penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision underscores the need for transparency, bonafide disclosures, and the distinction between assessment and penalty proceedings in resolving tax disputes effectively.