2019 (1) TMI 945 - AT - Income Tax

Appellant's Penalty Upheld for Tax Evasion

Adi Media Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO, Ward-1 (2), Range-1, New Delhi

The appellant's penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was upheld by the CIT(A) due to deliberate concealment of income ... Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) - disallowance of depreciation of leased premises - Held that:- Mistake in present case was not bonafide. From the records also, we can see that the assessee company only offered 50% claim of depreciation as its income and conveniently/deliberately concealed the actual fact that 2/3 part of the premises was on rent. In fact, the assessee repeated the said claims of depreciation as well as deduction u/s. 24 in A.Y. 2006-07 and 2008-09. AO rightly levied the penalty u/s 271 (1)(c). There is no need to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) as the assessee has deliberately given inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Issues:Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for claiming excess depreciation on leased premises.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in publishing business, claimed depreciation on a property partly let out and partly used for business. The Assessing Officer disallowed excess depreciation and initiated penalty proceedings. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, leading to penalty imposition.2. The appellant argued the error was inadvertent, relying on the tax audit report for claiming depreciation. Despite rectifying the mistake and revising returns, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty. The appellant contended no concealment or inaccurate particulars were provided at filing.3. The CIT(A) found the appellant's claim not bonafide, as it repeated similar claims in previous years, indicating a planned attempt to evade taxes. Citing case laws, the CIT(A) upheld the penalty, emphasizing the intentional nature of the claim.4. The records revealed the appellant concealed the actual rental status of the premises and repeated similar claims in multiple assessment years. The deliberate misrepresentation of facts justified the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.5. The CIT(A)'s decision was upheld as the appellant's actions demonstrated deliberate concealment of income particulars. The penalty was deemed appropriate given the intentional nature of the error. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the penalty imposition.6. The judgment emphasized the importance of bona fide mistakes and intentional misrepresentations in tax matters, leading to penalties under the Income Tax Act. The appellant's repeated claims and concealment of rental income justified the penalty upheld by the CIT(A).