TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant by : Shri Damodar Kabra Respondent by : Shri Ashok Suri O R D E R Per N.K.Saini (AM) : This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 02.12.2011 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai. 2. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of penalty of ₹ 36,500 levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee claimed depreciation of ₹ 1,08,276 on the truck purchased on 29.03.2006 for a sum of ₹ 7,21,838 and claimed the aforesaid depreciation on the said truck. The A.O. did not allow the claim of the assessee for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, particularly when all the details relating to acquiring the truck and the rate of depreciation were furnished to the AO. 7. On the similar issue, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held as under:- Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent case also, the assessee furnished all the details relating to the assets i.e. the truck and claimed the depreciation. However, merely on the basis that an incorrect claim of depreciation was made by the assessee, it cannot be said that it was a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, by keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), is deleted. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 5th day of February, 2014. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
