9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent under the block of computers eligible for higher rate of depreciation which has not been found acceptable by the AO who has altered its treatment and subjected it to a lower rate of depreciation. Such a non-acceptance of claim of the assessee by the Assessing Officer per se does not lead to imposition of penalty. In the present case, when the assessee has disclosed and explained all the relevant facts and details pertaining to the claim of higher depreciation on biometric devices, then we do not find that merely claiming a higher depreciation, which is otherwise supported by various judicial presidents would lead to a conclusion that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Thus considering case of Reliance Petro Product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.2012 reporting total income at ₹2,32,41,929/-. Assessment was completed under section 143(3), where in ld. AO had disallowed the depreciation of ₹1,68,600/- claimed on biometric devices, treating the same in the nature of normal plant and machinery and not the computers. Assessee had claimed depreciation @ 60% by considering the biometric device forming part of computer block. However, ld. AO treated the same as plant and machinery eligible for depreciation @ 15%. Thus, disallowance was made by the ld. AO for the difference in rate of depreciation of 45% (i.e. 60% 15%), amounting to ₹1,68,600/-. Assessee contested this disallowance before the ld. CIT(A), but was sustained. Thereafter, ld. AO imposed a penalty of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself, would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Unless there is a finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return of income were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there is no question of levying penalty under section 271(1)(c). 4. If the contentions of the Revenue are accepted, then in case of every return where claim is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature. The particulars of income as envisaged in section 271(1)(c) pertain to factual details/ information of the income and not to subjective areas such as taxability t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spite knowing this, assessee had claimed a higher rate of depreciation@ 60%. Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee, which has not been contested by the assessee in further appeal before the Tribunal. According to her, penalty has been rightly imposed for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 7. Having heard both the parties, we note that the sole issue for imposition of penalty is on account of difference in the rate of depreciation claimed by the assessee and as allowed by the Assessing Officer on the biometric devices. It is not a case where the claim is held to be false or bogus or sham. There is no dispute about the asset in question, and the higher rate of dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
