TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1961 based on the disallowance made by AO on account of depreciation which was confirmed to the extent of Rs. 11,93,714/- by the CIT(A) and the ITAT as well ? 2. Whether ld.CIT(A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in holding that the excessive claim of depreciation cannot be treated as inaccurate particulars of income despite the fact that the assessee had deliberately claimed excessive depreciation and the mistake committed by it cannot be said to be bonafide as held by Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication (2010) 191 Taxmann 179 ?" 3. In this case, the Assessing Officer had levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to `5,29,887/- in respect of the following disallowa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble ITAT held that the appellant could not prove that the said machine was put to use during the year and hence upheld the decision of the Hon'ble CIT(A)-X, New Delhi on this ground. It is evident that all material facts in this regard were duly disclosed by the appellant and hence it cannot be said that the appellant had concealed the particulars of income in respect of this item of disallowance. Secondly, regarding the second item of addition relating to disallowance of an amount of Rs. 2,68,984/-, which was held by the ld.AO as capital in nature, details of various expenses in the nature of repairs were furnished before the ld.AO. Thus, for this item also it cannot be held that the appellant had concealed the particulars of income even ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Tribunal was admitted by the High Court. It was, in these circumstances, that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had neither concealed the income nor filed inaccurate particulars thereof. In recording this finding, the Tribunal felt that if two views of the claim of the assessee were possible, the explanation offered by it could not be said to be false. This, however, is not the factual position in the case before us. The facts of the present case thus are clearly distinguishable. It is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of the income of the assessee, but it cannot be disputed that the claim made by the assessee needs to be bona fide. If t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have. We find that the assessee before us did not explain either to the income-tax authorities or to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as to in what circumstances and on account of whose mistake, the amounts claimed as deductions in this case were not added, while computing the income of the assessee-company. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the assessee is a company which must be having professional assistance in computation of its income, and its accounts are compulsorily subjected to audit. In the absence of any details from the assessee, we fail to appreciate how such deductions could have been left out while computi....