Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 623 - ITAT MUMBAIPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - provisions of the section 43(1) applicability - Held that:- There is no infirmity on the plank of the ld. CIT(A) under which he has deleted this penalty. It is settled law that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are distinct. Sustenance of the additions by the CIT(A) and assessee’s not contesting the same before ITAT cannot be said to be adversely affecting the assessee’s plea that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable. All the details of depreciation claim was duly made and disclosed in the computation of income. So there is no question of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The authorities below have only denied the claim on merits on the basis that term “subsidy or grant or reimbursement (by whatever name called)” would include capital contribution. Hence, the assessee’s claim has been denied. The assessee’s plea that it was under a bonafide belief that asset acquired out of capital contribution cannot be said to be in violation of the Act is absolutely bonafide. It will be not out of place to mention that the authorities below opinion, that the said term would include capital contribution also, prima facie itself has no basis. The principal of ‘ejusdem generis’ would also not support such an extension of the term “subsidy or grant or reimbursement (by whatever name called)”. The assessee’s belief that assessee was entitled for depreciation out of purchase made from capital contribution received from Government was bonafide. Hence, no case is there for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income - Decided against revenue.
|