Appellate Tribunal cancels penalty for claiming depreciation on unused car

The Appellate Tribunal overturned the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for claiming depreciation on a car not used during the relevant previous year. The Tribunal found that the appellant acted in good faith, rectified the mistake voluntarily, and did not conceal income. Consequently, the penalty was canceled, and the appeal was granted in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for claiming depreciation on a car not used during the relevant previous year.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer (AO) for claiming depreciation on a car purchased but not used during the relevant assessment year. The appellant argued that the claim of depreciation was made in good faith based on the purchase of an Innova Toyota Car, supported by audited accounts and a belief that the payment and entry in the books were genuine.

2. During the assessment proceedings, it was revealed that the car was purchased on 30th March, 2005, but the delivery was taken in the subsequent year, indicating that the car was not used during the relevant previous year. The AO disallowed the depreciation claim and initiated penalty proceedings. The appellant maintained that the claim was made honestly and only rectified the mistake voluntarily during the assessment proceedings.

3. The AO, however, was not convinced by the appellant's explanation, citing that the claim of bonafide belief was presented only after the department collected information from the car dealer. Consequently, a penalty of 200% of the tax sought to be evaded was levied under section 271(1)(c).

4. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision to impose the penalty. However, the Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's accounts were audited, and the mistake in claiming depreciation was acknowledged voluntarily without any concealment of income. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant acted in good faith and did not fall under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to cancel the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) as the appellant's actions were deemed to be based on a genuine belief and not an attempt to evade tax. Therefore, all grounds of appeal by the appellant were allowed, and the appeal in ITA No.81(Asr)/2011 was granted in favor of the appellant.

---