9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 289 - AT - Income TaxDeleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Held that - As the assessee had purchased new plant and machinery on which it claimed additional depreciation. This fact is not controverted by Revenue nor has it brought on record any material to prove that assessee had not purchased machinery. The assessee s claim of additional depreciation was based on the certificate of the Auditor wherein it was certified that the installed capacity has increased by more than 10% - the addition has been confirmed by ITAT on the basis of director s report. in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income - no penalty cannot be levied - in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for deletion of additional depreciation. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT (A)- VI, Ahmedabad for the assessment year 2005-06. The Revenue's sole ground of appeal was the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the CIT (A) on the addition of additional depreciation. The case involved the assessment of total income, including disallowance of additional depreciation and interest expenses, which were contested by the assessee before the CIT (A) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in the quantum appeal, had deleted the addition on account of interest expenses but sustained the addition on account of additional depreciation as the assessee failed to prove an increase in installed capacity. Subsequently, the AO levied a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The CIT (A) deleted the penalty, considering the issue of additional depreciation as debatable, citing a precedent where a similar claim was allowed by the ITAT based on the auditor's certificate. During the appeal before the ITAT, the Revenue argued that the assessee's claim was willful and intended to reduce tax liability, citing discrepancies in the director's report regarding installed capacity. On the other hand, the assessee contended that the claim was made in good faith based on the auditor's certificate and financial statements. The ITAT noted that the claim was based on a valid certificate, and the issue was debatable, following the principle that a mere unsustainable claim does not constitute inaccurate particulars of income. Referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd., the ITAT concluded that the addition of income does not automatically imply concealment. The ITAT distinguished the present case from the Zoom Communication case, where the claim was not debatable, and the assessee lacked a bonafide belief in the claim. Ultimately, the ITAT upheld the deletion of the penalty, emphasizing that the claim for additional depreciation was based on a valid certificate, and there was no evidence of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In light of the above analysis and legal principles, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and pronounced the order on May 31, 2012.
|
