Tribunal cancels penalty for depreciation claim, emphasizes need for concrete evidence

The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not warranted in this case. The original claim of depreciation on the stenter machine was not fraudulent, as the machine was installed and put to use during the relevant year. The AO's reliance on the revised return after a survey operation was deemed insufficient for penalty imposition. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence for penalty imposition, which was lacking in this case. The decision to cancel the penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld, emphasizing the absence of material to support the charge of concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the cancellation of the penalty.

---

---

Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Analysis:
The Revenue appealed against the cancellation of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed by the AO for assessment year 1991-92. The assessee initially declared a loss but later revised the return, declaring income due to a stenter machine purchase. The AO alleged that the assessee claimed depreciation on the machine wrongly, resulting in concealment of income. The CIT(A) cancelled the penalty, stating the AO's conclusion was based on surmises and lacked supporting evidence. The Director voluntarily offered to rectify the claim. The Revenue contended that the penalty should be upheld, as the machine's depreciation was wrongly claimed. The assessee provided documents supporting the machine's installation and usage during the relevant year. The AO's suspicion regarding installation lacked basis, and the assessee revised the return in good faith. The Tribunal found the original claim not fraudulent, citing a similar case precedent. The AO failed to provide incriminating evidence for concealment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating the penalty was unjustified without concrete evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not warranted in this case. The original claim of depreciation on the stenter machine was not fraudulent, as the machine was installed and put to use during the relevant year. The AO's reliance on the revised return after a survey operation was deemed insufficient for penalty imposition. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence for penalty imposition, which was lacking in this case. The decision to cancel the penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld, emphasizing the absence of material to support the charge of concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the cancellation of the penalty.

---