TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 955
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the assessee is a co-operative sugar mill which filed its return of income for the asst. yr. 2002-03 on 29th Oct., 2002 declaring an income of Rs. 42,868. The assessment in this case was completed under s. 143(3) of the Act on 31st March, 2003 at a total income of Rs. 1,78,46,060. One of the additions made was of a sum of Rs. 11,65,116. The said amount represented excess depreciation claimed by the assessee in the return of income, which was found not admissible. The AO vide order dt. 23rd March, 2007 passed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has held the assessee guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the income to the extent of the wrong claim of depreciation at Rs. 11,65,116. Penalty under s. 271(1)(c) equiva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claimed depreciation wrongly in the return of income and therefore, the AO was justified in inferring that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income which constituted a default within the meaning of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. He, therefore submitted that the penalty has been rightly imposed by the AO. According to the learned Departmental Representative, in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors & Ors. (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 617: (2008) 14 DTR (SC) 114: (2008) 306 ITR 277(SC), the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is a civil liability and it is mandatorily required to be imposed, irrespective of the fact whether it was an inten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns carefully. Whether the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in the context of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In this case, the assessee claimed depreciation in the return of income of Rs. 2,39,82,312. The depreciation chart filed by the assessee included an amount of Rs. 1,75,55,851 reflecting the additions made to the fixed assets during the year. On examining the details of such additions, it was found that certain additions to the fixed assets were made after 30th Sept., 2001 also. For such additions, the rate of depreciation applicable was half of the normal rate, whereas the assessee had applied the normal deprecia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate. It is not a case where such mistake has been found after a long drawn investigation or enquiry so as to establish that any concealed income has been unearthed. The mistake was discovered during the assessment proceedings and the assessee filed a corrected claim in the assessment proceedings. Under these circumstances, we, therefore, are satisfied that it was a mere mistake committed by the assessee while filing return of income and the entire facts had been duly disclosed by the assessee bona fidely. Thus, there cannot be a scope for alleging any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income against the assessee within the meaning of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A), in our view, was justified in deleting the penalty....