2013 (6) TMI 520 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Disallowance of Depreciation on factory Building & Technical Fees Written off - Held that - The undisputed facts in this case are that the assessee has claimed depreciation of the portion of building let out and had claimed write off of expenditure incurred on technical know-how fee. The fact of claiming of deduction was disclosed in the profit and loss account and also in the return of income. This bona fide belief of the assessee has not been controverted by Revenue by bringing any tangible material on record. As seen in the light of the decision of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. (2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT) and Zoom Communication P. Ltd. (2010 (5) TMI 34 - DELHI HIGH COURT) wherein held that absence of due care does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income, thus concluded that since all the necessary facts with respect to the claim of disallowance and deductions were furnished in the return income the fact that the disallowance has been made does not call for levy of penalty us/ 271(1)(c). Thus penalty levied by the AO cancelled. In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of penalty on disallowance of depreciation on factory building
- Confirmation of penalty on technical fees written off

Analysis:

Issue 1: Confirmation of penalty on disallowance of depreciation on factory building
The appeal arose from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim of depreciation on a part of the factory premises let out on rent, amounting to Rs.1,25,176. The penalty was imposed as the AO believed that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim. The AR argued that the rental income was treated as income from house property, and the depreciation oversight was unintentional. The AR contended that all necessary disclosures were made, and the mistake was bona fide. The Tribunal, considering the facts and the AR's arguments, relied on legal precedents and held that no penalty was justifiable. The penalty was canceled, and the ground of the assessee was allowed.

Issue 2: Confirmation of penalty on technical fees written off
In this issue, the Assessing Officer disallowed technical fees write off of Rs.1,92,945, as the assessee had already claimed more than the allowable depreciation on technical know-how. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The AR argued that the mistake was inadvertent and not with the intention of claiming excess deduction. The AR cited legal cases to support the contention that no penalty should be levied in such cases. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and legal precedents, found that the assessee had made necessary disclosures and the mistake was not intentional. Relying on legal judgments, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty was warranted. Consequently, the penalty was canceled, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal canceled the penalties imposed on the assessee for both issues, considering the inadvertent nature of the mistakes and the absence of any intention to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal's decision was based on detailed analysis, legal precedents, and the facts presented during the proceedings.