Penalty for inaccurate income particulars deleted as errors were bona fide.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not justified as the errors were bona fide and corrected by the assessee. The Tribunal clarified that the penalty for concealment did not apply in this case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
2. Addition of excess depreciation on Plant & Machinery.
3. Non-capitalization of custom duty and shipping expenses.
4. Addition of unpaid statutory liabilities under Section 43B.
5. Late deposit of employees' share of PF & ESI.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars of Income:
The primary issue was whether the penalty of Rs. 11,49,000/- under Section 271(1)(c) was justified. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings on the grounds that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income to reduce taxable income. The AO concluded that the assessee failed to substantiate its claims of expenses, invoking Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A).

2. Addition of Excess Depreciation on Plant & Machinery:
The AO added Rs. 24,56,003/- for excess depreciation claimed on Plant & Machinery. The assessee conceded discrepancies in its calculation and revised the depreciation claim from Rs. 72,16,906/- to Rs. 47,60,903/-. The mistake was due to an incorrect value of Plant and Machinery being recorded as Rs. 1,85,56,622/- instead of Rs. 18,55,862/-.

3. Non-Capitalization of Custom Duty and Shipping Expenses:
The AO added Rs. 3,50,021/- for custom duty and Rs. 98,766/- for shipping expenses, which the assessee treated as revenue expenses instead of capitalizing them. The AO disallowed these claims and added them to the income.

4. Addition of Unpaid Statutory Liabilities under Section 43B:
The AO added Rs. 3,14,215/- for unpaid statutory liabilities under Section 43B, despite the assessee's claim that these were paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1). The AO included this amount while computing the income for the year under consideration.

5. Late Deposit of Employees' Share of PF & ESI:
The AO added Rs. 1,94,244/- for the late deposit of employees' share of PF & ESI, which was not paid within the due date prescribed under the Act. The assessee argued that the amount was deposited before filing the return, although beyond the due date.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and material on record. It observed that the assessee's mistakes were bona fide and corrected by filing a revised return before the assessment's completion. The Tribunal noted that mere discrepancies do not indicate an intention to evade tax. The assessee's acceptance of the mistakes and non-appeal against the assessment order indicated no willful intent to evade tax.

For the addition under Section 43B, the Tribunal noted that the error was bona fide and disclosed in the audit report. Regarding the late deposit of PF & ESI, the Tribunal cited judgments allowing such payments if made before the due date for filing the return.

The Tribunal distinguished the case from the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Arcotech Ltd., noting that the assessee in this case had substantiated its claims and corrected mistakes, unlike in Arcotech.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for concealing particulars of income but levied the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal clarified that Explanation 1 applies to concealment, not furnishing inaccurate particulars. It concluded that the assessee's errors were bona fide and corrected, and the additions did not constitute conclusive evidence of concealment. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty.

Result:
The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted.

---