Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 454 - ITAT DELHIPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Excess depreciation claim - furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessee company of its income -CIT (A) arrived at the findings that it is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as alleged by AO rather assessee company has furnished all information before the AO - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the assessment order shows that at the time of recomputing carry forward depreciation, AO reached the conclusion that the assessee has claimed excess depreciation which amounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, whereas it is not the case when the working made and examined by the ld. CIT (A) It is the case of some adjustment made by the AO for examining the issue of depreciation whereas exact depreciation claimed by the assessee of ₹ 6,35,84,390/- and not the depreciation of ₹ 7,14,24,272/- as made by the AO. When the assessee company had furnished all the necessary facts with complete working of the computation of income under the normal provisions of the Act as well as under MAT u/s 115JB of the Act, there is no question of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As in assessee's own case [2017 (8) TMI 915 - ITAT MUMBAI] decided the issue as to the claim of depreciation of the assessee without deducting the amount of conditional grant received by the assessee from the actual cost from the WDV of the plant and machinery in favour of the assessee. So, in view of the matter, we are of the considered view that it is merely a case of difference arising out of the reworking of the carry forward depreciation by the AO by allowing more depreciation than claimed by the assessee company and not a case of concealing of income or furnishing of inaccurate of particulars of income. Consequently, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) who has rightly deleted the penalty levied by the AO, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
|