9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est be considered due in difference of opinion between the assessee and the Department but cannot be said to be a claim of such a nature which could be considered to be false and in respect of which the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is to be levied - uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the penalty - in favour of assessee. - - - - - Dated:- 2-11-2011 - SANJIV KHANNA, EASWAR R. V., JJ. JUDGMENT These two appeals by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short), are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 22nd May, 2009 (since reported in Deputy CIT v. Nokia India P. Ltd. [2011] 10 ITR (Trib) 790 (Delhi)), in the case of the respondent-assessee- Nokia India Private Limited fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed infructuous and we are not, therefore, inclined to entertain the appeal on the said grounds. The Assessing Officer in the assessment year 2000-01 had disallowed claim No. (v), provision for obsolescence, in the quantum proceedings holding as under : "(4) Disallowance of 25 per cent. of the provision for obsolescence In the profit and loss account, the assessee debited Rs. 49,46,656 on account of provision for obsolescences of inventory, which repre- sent 100 per cent. of the value of non-moving inventory of spare parts. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to substantiate the same. However, only written arguments along with the list of such items were filed. In the absence of any supporting evidence, the Assessing Officer disal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he old sets were out of the market. The customers in the due course also purchase the old sets. Therefore, it could not be understood as to how obsolescences were generated in the assessee's business when even the old sets can easily be consumed in the market. It is, thus, proved that the assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of its income by making provision for obsolescences of inventory in the books of account to the tune of Rs.12,36,664. Hence, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on this default." It may be noted that in the next assessment year 2001-02, the total amount claimed by the assessee under the head "Provision for obsoles- cence of inventory" was Rs. 35,575. While the Assessing Officer disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment but cannot be said to be a claim of such a nature which could be considered to be false and in respect of which the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is to be levied. We, therefore, uphold the order of the learned Commis- sioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty on this item also. Looking at the reasoning given by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, nature of disallowance and the finding of the Assessing Officer/Commis- sioner of Income-tax (Appeals) making ad hoc disallowance of 25 per cent., we do not think any substantial question of law arises in the present appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. It is clarified that dismissal of these appeals will not affect penalty proceedings, which may or may not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
