Leasing machinery qualifies for depreciation; mistaken withdrawal not concealment, penalty under s. 271(1)(c) ultimately deleted

HC held that leasing machinery to third parties constituted use for business purposes, satisfying conditions for depreciation. The assessee's original claim of depreciation was thus lawful and not based on inaccurate particulars; its subsequent withdrawal, made under a mistaken impression induced by the revenue, did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of false particulars under s. 271(1)(c) IT Act. The bona fides of the assessee were reinforced by the undisputed allowance of depreciation in the subsequent assessment year. Finding absence of mens rea and no infraction of s. 271(1)(c), HC set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the order of CIT(A), deleting the penalty.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Validity of the claim for depreciation on machinery for the assessment year 1994-95.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act:

Background and Legal Framework:
The appellant-assessee, a company engaged in leasing machinery, filed its return for the assessment year 1994-95 claiming depreciation on two machines. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim based on further verification, concluding that the machines were not put to use before 31-3-1994. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Arguments and Judgments:
The appellant argued that the claim for depreciation was made under a bona fide belief that the machines were put to use before 31-3-1994. Upon realizing the machines were commissioned later, the appellant revised the return, withdrawing the depreciation claim. The appellant cited several cases, including CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. and CIT v. Reetu Finlease (P.) Ltd., to assert that machinery leased out is considered used for business purposes.

The respondent contended that the appellant had not become the owner of the machines before 31-3-1994 and that the machinery was not put to actual use, thus justifying the penalty. The respondent cited cases like Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. v. CIT and K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT to argue that furnishing inaccurate particulars warranted penalty irrespective of mens rea.

Court's Analysis:
The court examined the legal provisions under section 271(1)(c) and relevant case laws. It noted that the appellant had acted on a bona fide belief and revised the return upon realizing the factual error. The court emphasized that the appellant's conduct did not exhibit mens rea or an intention to evade tax. The court also noted that the machinery was leased out, fulfilling the requirement for claiming depreciation.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant's actions were bona fide and did not warrant penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order was restored, favoring the appellant.

2. Validity of the Claim for Depreciation on Machinery for the Assessment Year 1994-95:

Background and Legal Framework:
The appellant claimed depreciation on two machines, asserting they were purchased and commissioned before 31-3-1994. The AO disallowed the claim, concluding the machines were commissioned later based on further verification from TELCO.

Arguments and Judgments:
The appellant argued that the machinery was leased out and thus used for business purposes, citing cases like CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. and CIT v. Reetu Finlease (P.) Ltd. The appellant contended that leasing out machinery constitutes use for business, making the depreciation claim valid.

The respondent argued that the machinery was not put to actual use before 31-3-1994, and the appellant had not become the owner before the said date, thus invalidating the depreciation claim.

Court's Analysis:
The court examined the factual matrix and legal provisions under section 32 of the Act. It noted that the appellant had entered into lease agreements and handed over the machinery to hirers before 31-3-1994. The court emphasized that the actual user by the hirers suffices for claiming depreciation, and the appellant's bona fide belief in claiming depreciation was justified.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant was entitled to claim depreciation for the assessment year 1994-95, as the machinery was leased out and used for business purposes. The appellant's bona fide belief and subsequent actions did not warrant penalty. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order was restored, favoring the appellant.

Final Judgment:
The court answered the questions of law in favor of the appellant and against the revenue. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order was restored. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---