9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income. The claim made by the assessee was bona fide. Where the assessee had submitted complete information and merely because the claim of depreciation had been made on a higher figure, does not make the assessee exigible to levy of penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 3650/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2016 - SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Rakesh Gupta, FCA, Shri Somil Agarwal, CA For The Respondent : Shri O.P. Meena, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This present appeal preferred by the assessee arises out of the order dated 3.2.2012 passed by the ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as of the view that the grant received was in the nature of capital receipt and accordingly the depreciation was fully allowable and the entire amount of grant was shown as capital reserve in the balance sheet. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) and also on the following decisions of the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal :- i) DCIT vs Gujarat State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 3294/Ahmedabad/2009 ii) ITO vs Twinkle Techplast Pvt. Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 2208 2209/Ahmedabad/2012 iii) NL Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT in I.T.A. No. 1340/Chandigarh/2012 4. Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to inaccurate particulars. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT, Ahemdabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (supra) further noted that in the facts of the case before it, there were no findings that any details supplied by the assessee in its return of income were incorrect or erroneous or false nor any statement made or any details supplied was found to be factually incorrect. The Court thus held that merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty under s. 271(1)(c). If the contention of the Revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under s. 27I(l)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature. The Tribunal, as well as, the CIT(A) and the High Court have correctly reached this conclusion. 9. Admittedly in the case before us, the assessee was in receipt of capital subsidy which had to be adjusted against the cost of assets purchased during the year and the depreciation on such assets had to be allowed on reduced value. The assessee had declared the complete information in respect of the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
