TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. We therefore delete the penalty levied in respect of the disallowance of claim of expenditure. In respect of depreciation claimed by the assessee, it is observed that the assessee has shown the income earned from renting of the property under the head “Income from House Property”. The assessee has wilfully shown the rental income under the head “Income from House Property” and further claimed depreciation. The assessee in such a situation has filed wrong particulars of income, which is apparent from the face of the record. We, therefore, confirm the penalty levied by the ld. AO on the disallowance of the depreciation. - Decided partly in favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and P&L account of last three years were perused and it was found that the assessee has not undertaken any business activity during this period too. The assessee has booked certain expense in its P&L account, including depreciation of ₹ 2,80,521/- on the building let out for rent, which in any way is allowable as per provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. The ld.AO disallowed the claim of business loss when no business activity has been performed during the year and the depreciation claimed on the let out building. 2.3. During the assessment proceedings, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income. Subsequently, the AO levied the penalty of ₹ 2,20,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) on 31.05.2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at claiming of depreciation on the immovable property could not be treated as a bonafide mistake. The ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in 306 ITR 277. Ld. DR submitted that the explanation appended to section 271(1)(c) of the Act indicates a strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. He submitted that the assessee in the present case has furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of the depreciation being claimed when the income earned from such property have been considered under the head "income from house property". 8. We have considered the rival submissions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is satisfied that, any person has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, then he may levy penalty on the assessee. Thus, there are two different charges i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty can be imposed only for a specific charge. Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income means, when the assessee has not disclosed the particulars correctly or the particulars disclosed by the assessee are found to be incorrect whereas, concealment of particulars of income means, when the assessee has concealed the income and has not shown the income in its return or in its books of accounts. 8.2. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otton & Ginning Factory(supra). 9.1. The ld.AO has disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee for setting up of the business of manufacturing and export of garments, on the basis that the project could not be implemented in the year under consideration. He thus levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. By applying the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory(supra), it appears that there was full disclosure by the assessee, however the expenditure claimed was inadmissible in law. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory(supra), we are of the opinion that the disallowance of the claim of expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|