TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. The brief facts leading to this case is this that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total loss of Rs(-)70,28,90,258/- which was finalized under scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2014 determining total loss at Rs.(-) 18,75,000/- whereby and whereunder additional depreciation claim of Rs. 18,47,95,000/- was disallowed. A penalty proceeding u/s.272(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated against the assessee for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by issuing notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 28.03.2014 which was culminated into the order imposing minimum penalty of Rs. 6,13,84,278/- on 01.03.2017. Ultimately, the same was deleted by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment order dated 28/03/2014. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 166 Taxman 65 (SC), has held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is civil liability and for attracting such civil liability, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient as is in the matter of prosecution under section 276C. As brought out in the assessment order, it is very clear that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Explanations added to Section 271(1)(c) in their entirety also indicate element of strict liability of assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing returns - Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 18,47,95,000/- on plant and machinery u/s.32(1)(iia) of the Act, which has been disallowed by the Ld. A.O. on the ground that appellant has started production only in the current year and therefore the assessee cannot be said to have been already engaged in the business of manufacturing. It is also a fact that the Ld. A.O. has initiated the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income but ultimately levied penalty for concealment of income. Apart from that in our considered opinion since this is a case of disallowance of claim of depreciation there cannot be any question of concealment of income. Further that, the appellant has made claim of additional depreciation on the basis of the Tax Audit Report. In this regard we hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erified the details appeared to have come to the conclusion that though there was record showing consumption of coal by the assessee from GMDC, the bank record suggested otherwise. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that penalty on this head should be deleted." 6. With respect to second head of addition relating to penalty, counsel submitted that the CIT(A) had given cogent reasons for deleting the penalty. It was noticed that the assessee had made full disclosures and the statutory report was also suggesting that the claim was legal. He further pointed out that the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. K. Rajendranathan Nair [2004] 265 ITR 35/135 Taxman 360 held that such claim was sustainabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal is disposed of..." 7. It appears from the records that while considering the appeal preferred by the assessee the Ld.CIT (A) took into consideration the ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the mater above. Apart from that the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Cera Sanitary Ware Ltd. has also been taken into consideration relevant portion whereof reads as under: "...13. From going through the above judgment of Hon. Apex Court and analyzing the facts of the case in the appeal before us, we find that it is squarely covered in favour of assessee by the above judgment as the assessee which is a limited company declaring total income of Rs. 11.43 crores (approx.) and having no mens rea of claiming excess deprec....