2015 (3) TMI 1279 - AT - Income Tax

Levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) - eligible for additional depreciation denied - Held that - After careful consideration of the provisions of section 32(1)(iia)the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation for the plant and machinery installed in the year under consideration. The case of the assessee is that the assessee was not able to install the plant and machinery as per statute and when it is not able to claim the entire additional depreciation the left over portion can be claimed in subsequent year being the provisions of section 32 is a beneficial provision. Considering the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) we are of the opinion that the assessee has made a bonafide claim by disclosing all material details before the Assessing Officer and therefore the claim of the assessee is neither concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore it is not a fit case to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee.

Analysis:
1. Assessment Year 2008-09 (I.T.A. No. 2711/Mds/2014):
- The assessee, engaged in the manufacture and sale of pumps and motors, claimed additional depreciation on plant and machinery acquired during 2002-2005. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, citing that the assessee was not eligible for additional depreciation in subsequent years as the plant and machinery lost its new character.
- The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was initiated, alleging the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars. However, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty, stating the claim was bonafide and all relevant facts were disclosed.
- The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the claim was made in accordance with the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the claim was legitimate, as the assessee had made a bonafide interpretation of the law, and no penalty should be levied.

2. Assessment Year 2009-10 (I.T.A. No. 784/Mds/2014):
- The facts and grounds for this assessment year were similar to the previous one. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the same reasons as in the assessment year 2008-09.

In both cases, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, emphasizing that the assessee's claim for additional depreciation was legitimate and not a basis for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and the bonafide nature of the assessee's actions, as per the principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases.