9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006-07. The penalty under dispute was levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 29-03-2011. 2. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic processing machinery and filed its return of income on 28-12-2006 declaring total income at Rs.3,44,80,760/-. Subsequently assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 22-12-2008 and the total income was determined at Rs.3,63,72,587/- by making various dis-allowances. Against the additions made by Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) where partial relief was granted to the assessee. On the additions upheld by Ld. CIT(A) AO vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow-how was of Rs.11,76,670/- and assessee had already been allowed deduction of Rs.9,64,725/- up to AY 2005-06. He further noted that as per assessee's calculation the total depreciation on technical know-how upto AY 2006-07 was at Rs.9,51,622/-. AO further noted that since assessee had already claimed expenditure in excess of depreciation allowable upto AY 2006-07 no depreciation was allowable. Accordingly, Rs.1,92,945/- was added to the total income and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). On the aforesaid two addition, the AO levied penalty u/s/ 271(1)(c) of the Act as he was of the view that assessee had failed to substantiate its claim and had not furnished satisfactory explanation substantiating its claim. The penalty levied by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und Rs. 3 lakh can be termed as bona fide error and not on account of assessee mala fide intention. He further placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petro products Ltd. 230 CTR 449 (SC) and in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT And Another (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). He thus urged that penalty levied by AO be deleted. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that assessee has made a wrong claim of deduction. The claim of assessee was not allowable as per law and the case of assessee is to be considered as one where assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income. He further submitted that had the case of the assessee not taken up for scrutiny, the assesse's claim would have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish inaccurate particulars. It has further held that the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted but the absence of due care in case does not mean that assessee is guilty of either furnishing of inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. In the case of Zoom Communication P. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that so long as the assessee has not concealed any material fact or the factual information given by him has not found to be incorrect, he will not be liable for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, even if the claim made by him is unsustainable in law, provided be either substantiate the explanation offered by him or the explanation, even if not substantiated, if found to be bon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
