TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laiming depreciation on composite value of building purchased for medical profession as no bifurcation of land and building was available. On the advice of Chartered Accountant and Auditor, the assessee carried out bifurcation cost of land and cost of building and surrendered excess depreciation claimed at ₹ 10,86,880/- on land with and paid tax thereon. The assessee voluntarily agreed to surrender the tax on value of depreciation wrongly taken on land and the this mistake was never intentional. The assessee has voluntarily bifurcated the value of land and building and surrendered the values of depreciation on land and the act of the assessee under the bonafide belief. Assessee had furnished all the particulars in return filed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT (A) completely overlooked the fact. a. The mistake in claiming Depreciation on land was never intentional. It was a Bonafide and inadvertent error. b. Assessee had furnished all the particulars in Return filed. c. Assessee never concealed the particulars of income nor submitted false information. d. Assessee had cooperated with Ld. A.O during the Assessment proceedings and submitted the information and documents as asked for:- e. Assessee had voluntarily computed and surrendered the Depreciation claimed on Land and gave complete working to arrive at cost of Land. In fact, the Assessing Officer did not even contradict the plea of the Assessee that excess claim of depreciation was an inadvertent error. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for disallowance of depreciation on land and capitalization of patents. In response thereto, the Assessee submitted its reply and after considering the reply of the assessee the AO was not satisfied with the assessee s that the assessee had voluntarily agreed to surrender the tax on value of the depreciation wrongly taken on land and accordingly, the penalty of ₹ 3,35,850/- was levied upon the assessee by the AO vide his order dated 20.09.2013 u/s. 271(1) of the I.T. Act. 3. Against the above Penalty Order dated 20.9.2013 passed by the Assessing Officer, assessee appealed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide his impugned order dated 01.10.2014 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the penalty imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f peculiar facts of the case, Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that imposition of penalty is not justified. He further submitted that where declaration was made by the assessee under the advice of Chartered Accountant and subsequently, the same was rectified, it was not a case of willful concealment warranting penalty u/s. 271(1) of the Act. To support his aforesaid contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India dated 25.9.2012 in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, Kolkata passed in Civil Appeal No. 6924 of 2012; Judgement of the Hon ble Suerme Court of India in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 322 ITR 158 and the Hon ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lady Gyne Doctor and filed income tax return at ₹ 10,58,44,690/- for assessment year 2010-11. The accounts were audited and Form 3CD was filed by the Chartered Accountant and income tax return were filed on the advice of the Chartered Accountant. The bonafide/inadvertent error on claiming depreciation on composite value of building purchased for medical profession as no bifurcation of land and building was available. However, on the advice of Chartered Accountant and Auditor, the assessee carried out bifurcation cost of land and cost of building and surrendered excess depreciation claimed at ₹ 10,86,880/- on land with and paid tax thereon. The assessee voluntarily agreed to surrender the tax on value of depreciation wrongly t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue that by itself would not attract the penalty under section 271 (1)( c). - Hon ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of ITO vs. Silk City Petrofiles Co. Ltd. reported 396 ITR 191 (Gujarat) has held For concealment of income (disallowance of claim effect of) Where declaration was made by assessee under advice of Chartered Accountant and subsequently, same was rectified, it was not a case of willful concealment warranting penalty under section 271(1) (in favour of assessee) (Head Notes Only) 7.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully follow the precedents, as aforesaid, we are of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
