2016 (12) TMI 1580 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed: Assessee not liable for penalty under IT Act

DCIT-10 (1), Mumbai Versus Kodak India Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the penalty imposed on the Assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year ... Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - disallowance of part of depreciation - Held that:- From the record we found that penalty has been levied with respect to the inadvertent claim of depreciation which was withdrawn when pointed out by the AO. The issue under consideration is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., (2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT). We found that plant and machinery was purchased more than six months prior to the close of the accounting year, however, it was put to use in the far end of the year. It was found to be an inadvertent mistake, hence penalty cannot be levied. The detailed finding given by CIT(A) by relying on various judicial pronouncements are as per material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) resulting into deletion of penalty. - Decided against revenue. Issues:Appeal against penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for assessment year 1997-1998 due to inadvertent claim of depreciation and non-production of bills.Analysis:The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the penalty imposed on the Assessee for the assessment year 1997-1998 under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The facts reveal that the Assessee, engaged in the manufacturing and sale of photographic materials, had made an inadvertent mistake in claiming depreciation for the full year on plant and machinery despite it being put to use only in the later part of the year. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation, leading to the imposition of the penalty. However, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty by considering the bonafide nature of the mistake, citing precedents such as Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT and CIT vs. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. The Tribunal also referred to similar cases where penalties were not justified for inadvertent errors, emphasizing that a mere incorrect claim does not constitute concealment of income or inaccurate particulars.The Tribunal further examined the case of Oscar Freight P. Ltd. vs. ITO, where similar facts led to the cancellation of the penalty. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessee's claim for depreciation was a bonafide mistake and did not warrant a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal relied on various judicial principles to support its decision, highlighting that making a higher claim of depreciation due to a bona fide mistake does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. and Mak Data (P) Ltd. to emphasize that merely offering income does not absolve an assessee from penalty proceedings.In its final decision, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings and the deletion of the penalty, emphasizing that the inadvertent nature of the depreciation claim, withdrawn upon realization of the mistake, did not warrant the imposition of a penalty. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s detailed analysis and reliance on judicial pronouncements to be in line with the facts of the case, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.Therefore, based on the factual and legal analysis, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the deletion of the penalty imposed on the Assessee for the inadvertent claim of depreciation, in accordance with relevant judicial precedents and legal principles.