2015 (8) TMI 838 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - addition on account of low G.P. - Held that - So far as sustenance of penalty on addition on account of estimation of GP is concerned, in quantum, addition has been sustained upto the stage of this Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has estimated the profit @ 9% as adopted by the AO of 11%. Hence, the entire addition is purely made on the basis of estimation. The contention is that book of accounts could not be produced because of the destruction in flood. It is settled principle of law that the quantum and the penalty proceedings are two different and distinct proceedings. Therefore, after considering the totality of the facts of the present case, we are of the view that levy of penalty would not be justified. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the penalty on addition made on the basis of estimation. Thus, this issue is allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of depreciation on computer - Held that - It is the contention of assessee that it had purchased computer on which depreciation was claimed. In view of the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT wherein held a mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee, we hereby direct the AO to delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the grounds of low Gross Profit (GP) and disallowance of depreciation on a computer.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Penalty on addition of low Gross Profit (GP):
The case involved an appeal against the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2004-05. The Assessee contested the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the grounds of low GP and disallowance of depreciation on a computer. The Tribunal had earlier set aside the addition on account of unsecured loans but confirmed the GP addition at a reduced rate of 9%. The Assessee argued that the GP addition was based on estimation and the Tribunal's decision to reduce the GP rate justified a deletion of the penalty. The Assessee contended that as the addition was made solely on estimation grounds, there was no basis for imposing a penalty. Citing various case laws, the Assessee emphasized the lack of evidence of income concealment. The Tribunal, considering the facts and the Assessee's explanation, directed the AO to delete the penalty on the GP addition, as it was based on estimation and the Assessee's inability to produce books of accounts due to a flood.

Issue 2: Penalty on disallowance of depreciation on computer:
The Assessee also challenged the penalty imposed on the disallowance of depreciation claimed on a computer due to the inability to produce evidence of purchase. The Assessee argued that the evidence was unavailable due to the destruction of records in a flood, despite the computer being reflected in the audited financial statements. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the Assessee contended that the claim was genuine and no penalty should be imposed for a bona fide claim. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the Assessee's submission, directed the AO to delete the penalty on the disallowance of depreciation on the computer.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, directing the deletion of the penalties imposed on both the low GP addition and the disallowance of depreciation on the computer. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between quantum and penalty proceedings, highlighting the Assessee's genuine claims and the lack of evidence due to uncontrollable factors like a flood. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principles of estimation, lack of concealment, and bonafide claims supported by relevant legal precedents.