9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 454 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Excess depreciation claim - furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessee company of its income - CIT (A) arrived at the findings that it is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as alleged by AO rather assessee company has furnished all information before the AO - HELD THAT - Perusal of the assessment order shows that at the time of recomputing carry forward depreciation, AO reached the conclusion that the assessee has claimed excess depreciation which amounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, whereas it is not the case when the working made and examined by the ld. CIT (A) It is the case of some adjustment made by the AO for examining the issue of depreciation whereas exact depreciation claimed by the assessee of ₹ 6,35,84,390/- and not the depreciation of ₹ 7,14,24,272/- as made by the AO. When the assessee company had furnished all the necessary facts with complete working of the computation of income under the normal provisions of the Act as well as under MAT u/s 115JB of the Act, there is no question of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As in assessee's own case 2017 (8) TMI 915 - ITAT MUMBAI decided the issue as to the claim of depreciation of the assessee without deducting the amount of conditional grant received by the assessee from the actual cost from the WDV of the plant and machinery in favour of the assessee. So, in view of the matter, we are of the considered view that it is merely a case of difference arising out of the reworking of the carry forward depreciation by the AO by allowing more depreciation than claimed by the assessee company and not a case of concealing of income or furnishing of inaccurate of particulars of income. Consequently, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) who has rightly deleted the penalty levied by the AO, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
Issues:
- Appeal against penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2002-03. - Allegation of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. - Deletion of penalty by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). - Challenge by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Analysis: Issue 1: Appeal against Penalty Order The Appellant, ACIT, Central Circle 17, New Delhi, sought to set aside the penalty order dated 31.08.2009 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2002-03. The penalty was imposed for claiming excess depreciation, leading to alleged inaccurate particulars of income. Issue 2: Allegation of Inaccurate Particulars The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) against the assessee for claiming depreciation exceeding the allowable amount. The AO alleged that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income, resulting in a penalty of &8377; 57,51,449 being levied. Issue 3: Deletion of Penalty The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty after the assessee appealed, arguing that all necessary information was provided to the AO. The CIT (A) found that the AO's adjustment for excess depreciation was not justified, as the assessee had correctly claimed depreciation of &8377; 6,35,84,390, not the &8377; 7,14,24,272 considered by the AO. Issue 4: Challenge Before the Tribunal The Revenue challenged the CIT (A)'s decision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the matter and concluded that the AO's reworking of carry forward depreciation led to a difference in depreciation claimed by the assessee and allowed by the AO. It was determined that this was not a case of concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Conclusion The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It was established that the assessee had provided all necessary details, and the discrepancy arose from the AO allowing more depreciation than claimed. The Tribunal found no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, outlining the sequence of events, arguments presented, findings of the authorities, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.
|
