TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding income of the assessee - such a claim made in return is not amounting to furnishing of inaccurate particulars – thus, making of addition while framing assessment does not call for levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T.A. No. 2085/AHD/2011 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2014 - Shri D. K. Tyagi, J.M. And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Ramesh Malpani For the Respondent : Shri P. L. Kureel, Sr. D. R. ORDER Per Shri Anil Chaturvedi,A.M. 1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-I, Surat dated 21.06.2011 for A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty is upheld. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Assessee is now in appeal before us. 5. Before us ld. A.R. submitted that Assessee had claimed depreciation of 35% under section 32(1)(iia) and the depreciation was available in the year new machinery or plant was acquired and installed. Inadvertently, the depreciation rate of 35% was applied in the second year. The continuance of the same block in the next year was mistake through oversight. When the matter came to the notice of the Assessee during the assessment proceedings, the Assessee accepted the mistake. Ld. A.R. therefore submitted that the claim of depreciation was not a deliberate claim but was due to oversight and for which he placed reliance in the case of Price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same have been disclosed by him. If the case of any assessee falls in any of these three categories, then according to the deeming provision provided in Expln. 1 to section 271(l)(c) the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income shall be considered as the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed, for the purposes of cl. (c) of s. 271(1), and the penalty follows. On the other hand, if the assessee is able to offer an explanation, which is not found by the authorities to be false, and assessee has been able to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. It further held that absence of due care does not mean that the Assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. 10. In the case of CIT vs. Brahamputra Consortium Ltd. (supra) vide order dated 03.08.2011 the facts were that the Assessee had claimed depreciation at 40% on certain equipments though the Assessee was eligible to claim depreciation @ 25%. When the Assessee was confronted, it revised its claim of depreciation. Hon ble High Court concluded when the Assessee accepts the excess depreciation claimed inadvertently and the same being disallowed by the A.O, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not warranted in such a case. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
