2019 (2) TMI 640 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - reason for depreciation being claimed at 120% on air pollution control of equipments on items over 120 days and 60% for items below 120 days - Held that - Assessee was under bona fide belief that depreciation calculated by software was correct. Thus in our view assessee was in bonafide belief that it is eligible for depreciation at 120% and that foreign exchange fluctuation loss on account of purchase of sale was a revenue expenditure. It is observed that explanation offered by assessee has not been found to be false by AO. It is a case of wrong claim, which cannot be categorised within ambit of filing of inaccurate particulars. Genuineness of foreign exchange fluctuation loss on account of purchase of assets has not been disputed by the AO. During the course of assessment proceedings, only the claim of deduction on account of additional depreciation and foreign exchange fluctuation loss has been disallowed as the same was not found to be allowable as per the Income Tax Act. Thus, it is a case of mere disallowance of claim of deduction on account of additional depreciation and foreign exchange fluctuation loss. In the case of Reliance Petro Product Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT) mere disallowance of claim of expenditure does not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Relying upon the decision of Reliance Petro Products Ltd., the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to delete the impugned penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
2. Whether the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was justified.
3. Adequacy of explanation provided by the assessee for the discrepancies in the claim of depreciation and treatment of foreign exchange fluctuation loss.
4. Application of the legal principle regarding the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) in cases of wrong claims.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income
The case involved a penalty appeal filed by the revenue against the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2009-10. The primary issue was whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of ?25,83,572 imposed by the Assessing Officer was justified.

Issue 2: Justification of the penalty imposed
The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, specifically related to the claim of depreciation and foreign exchange fluctuation losses. The assessee had accepted the additions made by the Assessing Officer and paid the due tax without preferring an appeal. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 3: Adequacy of explanation provided by the assessee
The assessee had submitted that the depreciation claimed at 120% and the treatment of foreign exchange fluctuation loss were due to inadvertent mistakes made in the software calculations and a bona fide belief regarding accounting standards. The Ld.AO rejected the explanation and imposed the penalty.

Issue 4: Application of legal principle
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the penalty. It was observed that the assessee had offered a reasonable explanation for the discrepancies in the claim of depreciation and treatment of foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The Tribunal noted that the case involved wrong claims rather than filing of inaccurate particulars. Citing the decision in Reliance Petro Products Ltd., the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty as the mere disallowance of the claim did not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c).

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the legal principles applied by the Tribunal in reaching its decision to dismiss the revenue's appeal and uphold the deletion of the penalty by the Ld.CIT(A).

← Previous Next →