Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (6) TMI 520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ME 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. - ITA No.2380/ Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2013 - Shri G. C. Gupta And Shri Anil Chaturvedi,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri M. J. Shah, AR For the Respondent : Shri Sunil Kumar, DR ORDER Per Anil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - "1. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals)-VIII, Ahmedabad has erred in confirming the penalty levied on Disallowance of Depreciation on factory Building of Rs.1,25,176/- though explained. The Penalty levied be deleted. 2. The Learned C.I.T. (Appeals)-VIII Ahmedabad has erred in confirming the penalty levied on Technical Fees Written off of Rs.1,92,945/- though explained. The penalty levied be deleted." 3. During the course of assessment proceedings Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had given part of the factory premises on rent and had claimed depreciation @ 10% and had also received rent. AO was of the view that since the portion of the building has been let out and therefore not used for business purposes, the assessee was not eligibl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urther submitted that information was stated and disclosed in the profit and loss account and the fact of receipt of rental income was also highlighted separately in the profit and loss account. It was thus submitted that all the necessary disclosures were made and there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Further, there was no intention of the assessee to seek excess deduction by making excess claim and the mistake on the part of the assessee was a bona fide mistake. He thus, urged that the penalty on the aforesaid addition be deleted. With respect to the addition made on account of the technical fee the Ld. AR submitted that assessee was claiming 1/6th of technical know-how expenditure every year as allowable expenses in a routin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uted 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. It is not the case that the assessee has not disclosed the amount or has concealed the particulars of income. This bona fide belief of the assessee has not been controverted by Revenue by bringing any tangible material on record. 7. In the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the issue was that though the provision towards payment of gratuity was not allowable, the assessee had claimed a deduction in the return of income and was also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... disallowance vis- -vis the returned income the submission of the assessee that the claim was made inadvertently cannot be doubted. It is also a fact that the assessee has filed return of income showing taxable income in excess of Rs. 3 crore and the additions which has been made and on which penalty has been levied is of approx. of Rs.3 lakh. In the present case the factual information submitted by assessee has not been found to be incorrect. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts and relying on the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication P. Ltd. (supra) we are of the view that no penalty is leviable in presen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates