Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2009 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (9) TMI 955 - AT - Income TaxPenalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) - Claimed Excess depreciation - Assessment completed u/s. 143(3) - Whether the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in the context of s. 271(1)(c) - AO passed order u/s. 271(1)(c) held that assessee guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the income to the extent of the wrong claim of depreciation. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) equivalent to 100 per cent of the tax sought to be evaded on such income has been imposed by the AO. CIT (A) deleted penalty - HELD THAT:- The assessee cannot be said to have either disclosed inaccurate particulars or concealed any particulars of income. Firstly, it is to be appreciated that there is no allegation on the assessee of not disclosing the complete particulars. In fact, the return of income of the assessee was accompanied by a schedule of fixed assets which inter alia showed additions made prior to 30th Sept., 2001 and post 30th Sept., 2001. Moreover, the account books of the assessee have been subject to tax audit u/s. 44AB by a firm of chartered accountants, a copy of which has been placed on record. Even in such statement, the depreciation claim has been calculated by applying the normal rate of depreciation on the entire additions. Secondly, having regard to the fact that the respondent assessee is a co-operative sugar mill which is manned by public officers, the bona fides of the same are prima facie not in doubt. Further, the difference in the claim has arisen on account of a mere wrong application of depreciation rate. It is not a case where such mistake has been found after a long drawn investigation or enquiry so as to establish that any concealed income has been unearthed. The mistake was discovered during the assessment proceedings and the assessee filed a corrected claim in the assessment proceedings. We, therefore, are satisfied that it was a mere mistake committed by the assessee while filing return of income and the entire facts had been duly disclosed by the assessee bona fidely. Thus, there cannot be a scope for alleging any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income against the assessee within the meaning of s. 271(1)(c). The CIT(A), in our view, was justified in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO. The ratio of the decision in the case of Dharamendra Textile Processors & Ors.[2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT] does not apply to the facts of the present case. The said decision merely explains the qualitative difference between a criminal liability envisaged under s. 276C and a civil liability provided under s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
|