2012 (12) TMI 480 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee penalized for misleading tax actions incl. excess depreciation & inaccurate income particulars

The Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for deliberate misleading actions by the assessee in claiming excess ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Excess claim of depreciation - Devalued amount has been claimed in the form of depreciation and to that extent excess claim of depreciation has been made by assessee - Machineries are devalued by the company on its own accord even though the machineries are in operation – Held that:- As the statutory auditor itself had pointed out that the excess depreciation claim on certain items of P&M is not in conformity with the concept of block of assets. Inspite of such comments of the auditors the assessee did not reduce the excess depreciation claim while computing the total loss/income. Non-inclusion of Excise duty as per the provisions of section 145A – Held that:- While arriving at the closing stock no adjustment with regard to excise duty was made which is a deliberate violation of the provisions of section 145A. Disallowance of unpaid bonus u/s 43B – Held that:- The assessee has deliberately violated the provisions by not disallowing the unpaid bonus u/s. 43B Therefore, this is a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee in furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and making false claim of deduction. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) are clearly attracted. In favour of revenue Issues Involved:1. Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.2. Excess claim of depreciation.3. Non-inclusion of excise duty in closing stock valuation.4. Disallowance of unpaid bonus under section 43B.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):The primary issue revolves around whether the penalty of Rs. 73,71,366/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was rightly confirmed. The assessee contended that the penalty was unjustified, citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., which held that mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had deliberately misled by furnishing inaccurate particulars, thus justifying the penalty.2. Excess Claim of Depreciation:The assessee claimed excess depreciation of Rs. 2,00,06,968/- by devaluing certain machinery, which was not in accordance with the concept of block of assets as per section 43(6) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was aware of this non-conformity, as highlighted by the auditors, yet did not rectify the claim. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, emphasizing that the claim was made knowingly in violation of the statutory provisions.3. Non-inclusion of Excise Duty in Closing Stock Valuation:The assessee failed to include excise duty of Rs. 2,68,423/- in the valuation of closing stock, violating section 145A of the Act. The Tribunal observed that this omission was deliberate, as the requirement to include excise duty was clear and unambiguous. This deliberate non-compliance warranted the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c).4. Disallowance of Unpaid Bonus under Section 43B:The assessee claimed a deduction for unpaid bonus amounting to Rs. 1,60,474/-, which was not paid within the stipulated time as per section 43B of the Act. The Tribunal held that this claim was also a deliberate act of furnishing inaccurate particulars, as the statutory provisions explicitly disallowed such deductions. The Tribunal upheld the penalty on this ground as well.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's actions were deliberate attempts to mislead and furnish inaccurate particulars of income, thereby justifying the penalty under section 271(1)(c). The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the penalty confirmed.