TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particular claim in the return of income and has also furnished all the material facts relevant, the disallowance of such claim automatically lead to the conclusion that there was concealment of particulars of his income by the assesse or furnishing of accurate particulars of such income. All the material facts relevant to the claim had been furnished by the assessee, thus, it is not a fit case to attract the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act - A mere rejection of the claim of the assessee by relying on different interpretations does not amount to concealment of the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, by the assessee - no cogent material or evidence was brought to our notice which may prove that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which are purchased under TUFS on or after first day of April, 2004 are eligible for 50% depreciation. The assessee did not provide any details as if the machineries claimed to have been purchased during the year under consideration is covered by TUFS. In absence of any evidences/documents it could not be ascertained as if machineries are eligible under TUFS or not. Therefore, AO was of the view that it was established that the assessee-company engaged in the field of texturising the POY which was not covered by either of the process as covered by the provision of Rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules. Hence, depreciation claimed on plant and machinery at Rs. 48,35,632/- being 50% of WDV at Rs. 96,77,264/- was restricted to the depreciation allowa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purposes of the penalty proceedings. It is, therefore, necessary to re-appreciate and reconsider the matter also as to find out as to whether the addition made in the quantum proceedings actually represents the concealment on the part of the assessee as engaged in sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act and whether it is a fit case to impose the penalty by invoking the said provisions. The issue as to whether or not the assessee is entitled to higher rate of depreciation is highly debatable. In the case under consideration, it is apparent that all the relevant facts have been disclosed by the assessee. The only dispute is on interpretation of item 111(6) of Appendix 1 of the IT Rules, 1962. It is well set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain expenses claimed by the assessee are disallowed by an authority, it cannot mean that particulars furnished by the assessee were wrong. It was held that mere disallowance of expenses persee cannot be meant that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. In the case under consideration, we find that the assessee had given all the particulars of income and had disclosed all facts to the AO. It is not the case of the AO or the assessee that in reply to the query of the AO, some new facts were discovered or the AO had dug out some information which was not furnished by the assessee. In such circumstances, Hon ble Delhi High Court held in the case of CIT vs. Bacardi Martini India Ltd, 288 ITR 585 (Del) that no penalty was le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
