TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll depreciation was not in order. In the course of assessment proceedings the depreciation was accordingly restricted to 50% of the claim of ₹ 11,76,788/- thereby allowing only an amount of ₹ 5,88,394/-. The A.O. initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty of ₹ 2,11,086/-. It was the submission of the assessee in the penalty proceedings that the trucks were purchased in August and September 2003 and in the company's schedule also they were stated as purchased in August and September 2003 and therefore under a bonafide mistake they have claimed full depreciation. The A.O. enquired about the purchase of trucks. The details were furnished, which indicated that the trucks were registered on 14th October 2003 and insured o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee is in the business of transportation and purchased three trucks in the month of August and September and they were given for body building in September 2003 itself and accordingly entered in company's account as having purchased in August and September 2003 and in support furnished the schedule as per company's books of account. It was the submission that when the A.O. enquired about the claim of depreciation assessee furnished all the details including copies of the RC Book wherein it has come to the knowledge that the trucks were actually registered in October 2003 and where used subsequently. Therefore when the A.O. disallowed the claim assessee accepted the same. It was submitted that the claim was a bonafide mistake in claiming ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of ₹ 7,70,731/- for building bodies of the above trucks. Even though the actual completion of the work was not on record but the schedule in company's account 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 receipt of income dated 31st October....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the full year, there was a bonafide mistake while filing the return which did not involve any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate 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 cit vs. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. 322 ITR 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. ....