9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its claim would not lead to a conclusion that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Even otherwise, it is a debatable issue and no penalty is leviable on debatable issue. Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] held that the words used u/s 271(1)(c) are plain and simple, and unless the case of the assessee is strictly covered by words in this provision, no penalty can be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing in accurate particulars. Merely because the assessee claimed deduction of interest expenditure has not been accepted by the revenue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not attracted. If the contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n plant and machinery during the year under consideration. The assessee made addition to the plant and machinery in first half of financial year of Rs. 73,05,105/- and in second half addition of Rs. 93,54,217/-. The claim of assessee was that they are eligible for additional depreciation @ 20%, if the plant and machinery is put to use for 180 days or more and @ 10% if put to use for less than 180 days. By mistake, the assessee claimed additional depreciation for whole of the addition on account of plant and machinery @ 20% instead of 10% in current year and remaining 10% in subsequent year. During assessment, the assessee made submission to disallow the same in the year under consideration and allowed in subsequent year, tax on both the yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in fact, basis of disallowance. The Ld. AR of the assessee also relied upon decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), wherein it has was held that merely making an unsustainable claim, without inaccuracy in furnishing particulars of income does not attract a penalty. The Ld. AR also relied upon decision of Delhi Tribunal in Vibracoustic India Private Limited Vs ACIT in ITA N.5339/Del/2019 dated 29.06.2022. 3. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr-DR) for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that the assessee claimed additional depreciation on both the items, which was not allowable and was rightl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer by taking view that assessee has not furnished any further details, which was not considered by Assessing Officer during penalty proceedings. We find that excess disallowance of plant and machinery and on leasehold improvement is not in dispute. Further, we find that both the disallowances were made on the basis of details furnished by assessee. Admittedly all details were available on record. Merely the assessee could not substantiate its claim would not lead to a conclusion that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Even otherwise, it is a debatable issue and no penalty is leviable on debatable issue. We find that Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd (supra) held that the words used under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
