2012 (11) TMI 9 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - addition on account of unutilised Modvat Credit, depreciation on motor car and expenditure incurred on Research and Development Held that - Claim of any expenditure has to be proved by the assessee with corroborative evidence. Mere making of a claim is not sufficient. - Entries in the books of accounts or auditors reports or Board of Directors Meeting cannot take place of a piece of genuine evidence. - If assessee fails to produce the same, his claim also fails. In the case under consideration, the assessee has failed miserably to substantiate and support claim made by it - such transactions do not suffer from any deficiency as far as factum of going out of sum is concerned. But in the case under consideration basic fact of spending of money for purchasing items for R&D purposes itself missing. As a result, penalty levied for filing inaccurate particulars and thus concealing the particular of income is confirmed - Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for unutilized Modvat Credit.
2. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for excess depreciation on motor vehicles.
3. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of capital expenditure on Research & Development (R&D).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Unutilized Modvat Credit:
The Assessing Officer (AO) added unutilized Modvat Credit to the income, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Tribunal had earlier restored this issue to the AO's file, making it a debatable issue. The AO imposed a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, the Tribunal opined that since the matter was debatable, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed for such issues. Consequently, the penalty for unutilized Modvat Credit was deleted.

2. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Excess Depreciation on Motor Vehicles:
The AO disallowed excess depreciation claimed on motor vehicles, which was upheld by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal had earlier decided this issue in favor of the assessee, deleting the addition. As the addition itself was deleted, there was no justification for imposing a penalty. Therefore, the penalty related to excess depreciation on motor vehicles was also deleted.

3. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Disallowance of Capital Expenditure on R&D:
The AO disallowed the capital expenditure claimed for R&D due to insufficient evidence provided by the assessee. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to produce adequate supporting documents. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty imposed by the AO. The Tribunal reviewed the case law cited by the assessee, including Reliance Petro Products, Sree Krishna Electricals, and Jay Engg. Works Ltd., and found them distinguishable from the current case. The Tribunal emphasized that the onus was on the assessee to substantiate the claim with corroborative evidence, which was not done. The Tribunal concluded that the claim was bogus and upheld the penalty for filing inaccurate particulars and concealing income.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty for disallowance of capital expenditure on R&D, while deleting the penalties related to unutilized Modvat Credit and excess depreciation on motor vehicles. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of substantiating claims with genuine evidence and differentiated between debatable and bogus claims, emphasizing that the latter justifies the imposition of penalties.