TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1580
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aphic materials. During the year under consideration the assessee had purchased plant and machinery in the first half of the previous year which was capitalized in the first half of the year but depreciation was claimed for the full year overlooking the fact that it was put to use only in March, 1997. The A.O. noticed the mistake then the assessee had withdrawn the claim. Since assessee had withdrawn the claim, no appeal was filed on the above issue. However, the AO levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) with respect to disallowance of part of depreciation. 4. By the impugned order CIT(A) deleted the penalty after observing as under:- I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The A.O. had disallowed' depreciation claimed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the grievance of the Revenue was that the mistake ought to have been rectified by filing a revised return of income. The Tribunal held that the *time to file a revised return had expired. There was no dispute that it was a bonafide mistake on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the imposition of penalty was not warranted. During the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee sold its garment assets and claimed a loss of Rs. 21.68 lakhs thereon as a revenue expenditure in its return, In the course of assessment proceedings, it realized its mistake and withdrew the loss. The Assessing Officer accepted the withdrawal and completed the assessment but imposed penalty under section 271 (1)(c). The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt indicates that these were reported to have been completed before 30th September, 2003 and accordingly shown in the schedule as such. As can be seen from other details, the trucks were registered with the authorities on 14th October 2003. Therefore, it can be stated that the trucks were ready for use before that date. It can also be considered that the RTO authorities will take some time in registering the vehicles, which was ultimately done on 14th October. Therefore, the trucks could have been ready any time before 14th October 2003. The first step of income date 31st October does not prove that the first trip was made only on that date. Once they are ready for use and were registered, it cannot be stated that the trucks were not put to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... particulars and does not attract penalty. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhrahmaputra Consortium Ltd. 2011-TIOL-470-HC-DEL-IT also held that when the assessee accepts that excess depreciation was claimed inadvertently and the same being disallowed by the A. O. penalty under section 271 (1)(c) is not warranted. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ell' vs. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. 322 TI'R 158 also held that a mere making of claim, which is not sustainable in law by itself, will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In view of these judicial principle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng were shown by the ClT'(A) as 10th November, 2003. This itself does not establish that the body building was done later as the registration of the trucks was* done on 14th October 2003 itself. There can be no registration without body being built. Since we are of the opinion that there is a bonafide mistake in claiming higher depreciation, respectfully following the principles established as stated above, we have no hesitation in cancelling penalty levied under section 271 (l)(c). These grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. " Applying the ratio of the Bombay Tribunal, decision where the facts are similar to our case have held that for inadvertent mistake penalty cannot be levied. Hence; following all the above decision, penal....