TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1036
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 271(1)(c) is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, illusory and against the facts of the case and thus deserves to be deleted. 2. The action of the lower authorities in not following the case laws on the issue and in spite of legal precedents, still not quashing the penalty of Rs. 2,22,240/- is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, illusory and against the facts of the case and thus deserves to be deleted." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring income of Rs. 63,52,180/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) by making certain additions, including the addition on account of excess claim of depreciation of Rs. 14,21,000/- and Rs. 8725/- on account of disallowance of proportionate expe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the CIT(A) and he also submitted a written synopsis and paper book and relied upon case laws. The written synopsis submitted by the assessee reads as under :- "Assessee is a private limited company in the business of doing job work of printing and dyeing of fabrics during the relevant year. In the assessment framed u/s 143(3) the following two additions amongst others were made by him:- a) A sum of Rs. 7,10,500/- was disallowed out of depreciation claimed by the company on its plant and machinery. The facts of the case are that during the relevant year the company had received capital subsidy from Ministry of Textiles to the tune of Rs. 40,60,000/-. The scheme of the Ministry in giving the subsidy to all eligible units was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a penalty of Rs. 2,22,241/- being 100% of the tax sort to be evaded. We are in appeal before you against this levy. 3. Even on the facts of the case as described in para 1 above it can be appreciated that penalty has been levied by holding that assessee has claimed excess depreciation in its return. The AO has stated that no reply has been received in response to the notice. It is submitted that I had personally filed a letter with the AO giving case laws that no penalty can be levied in case of claim of depreciation since it does not amount to concealment. Assessee's file was not on the AO's table and he had kept the letter and had assured me that my reply will be considered. The same has not been done as per his order. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduct Pvt Ltd fcOlOl 322 ITR 158 (SC). Under these circumstances, the addition accepted being bona fide, there is no concealment of income and as such no penalty u/s 271(1)(C) is leviable. 2. The disallowance of depreciation will not perse amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars for which reliance is placed in CIT Vs Aiaib Singh & Com (253 ITR 630) (P&H). Where no information, given in the return, is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee can not be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. 3. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs JCIT (291 ITR 519){SC) and Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processors (306 1TR 277HSC) clearly held that merely because assessee claimed expenditu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the judicial pronouncements, that too from the Hon'ble Apex Court, no penalty is leviable especially when there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return is erroneous or incorrect, therefore, mere making a excess claim in itself does not invite imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) because the same cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. " We are also enclosing case laws directly related to our case where it has been held that no penalty should be levied in the facts and circumstances of our case.:- 1. CIT v. P J Chemicals Ltd. Page 13-14 2. CIT v. Jawahar Lal Gupta and Ashutosh Mohunta, JJ Page 15 3. Dilip N Shroff v. JCIT, Special range, Mumbai Page 16 4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relied by the assessee. It is not in dispute that the assessee has declared the total value of fixed assets (Plants & Machinery) in its books of accounts. It is also not in dispute that the capital subsidy received by the assessee under TUFF scheme of Gujrat Government was also declared by the assessee before the AO in the assessment proceedings. The only lapse on the part of the assessee unearthed by the AO in the assessment proceedings was that instead of deducting the cost of fixed assets by the amount of capital subsidy received from the Govt., the assessee had shown it as part of reserves in the balance sheet and for this lapse, the AO had already disallowed the excess depreciation claimed. These facts, however, nowhere go to suggest t....