TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome and also the Assessing Officer had erred in failing to mention whether notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued for concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income. 3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that he does not wish to press ground No. 2. Rejected, as not pressed. 4. Apropos ground No. 1, in the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that during the F.Y. 2011-12, relevant to the assessment year under consideration, i.e., assessment year 2012-13, there was an increase of Rs. 2,68,12,425/- worth of fixed assets of the assessee. As per the tax Audit Report, major capital expenditure had been incurred on three items, as under:- Item purchased Name of the party Bill No. Date Date when put to use Amount Purchase of saloon Plants / Equipments etc. Pevonia Spa Care Pvt. Ltd. 008/PSC/201 25-Sep-ll 25-Sep-ll 1,32,09,000 Purchase of saloon Plants / Equipments etc. Pevonia Spa Care Pvt. Ltd. 007/PSC/201 25-Sep-ll 25-Sep-l 1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whereas the bills were received later. This, however, could not be substantiated by producing any evidence regarding receipt of machinery. It could also not be proved that the machinery had been put to use in September, 2011. The AO was, thus, of the view, that the assessee had failed to produce any concrete evidence or explanation and it had, therefore, failed to discharge its onus. 10. Concerning the second issue of disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 2,09,559/-, in the reply to the show cause notice, the assessee merely stated that the purchase bills had been misplaced. The AO observed that such contention of the assessee could not be accepted, since if the bills had been misplaced, the assessee could have got another copy of the bills from the vendor, or, at least, it could have submitted details of the parties/vendors from whom it had purchased the machinery on which the depreciation had been claimed; that, however, the assessee had done neither; and that thus the assessee had failed to provide any concrete evidence or explanation with regard to this addition also and had, thereby, failed to discharge its onus. 11. The AO, thus, imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,00,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of depreciation in the absence of purchase bills, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that such disallowance was misplaced as the same does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income; and that duplicate bills could not be obtained, as the party concerned had closed shop. 18. In support of its case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the following decisions:- Name of the Decision Citation 1. Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Sidharth Enterprises 322 ITR 80 (P&H) 3. CIT vs. Rajiv Bhatara 360 ITR 121 (P&H) 4. Manoj Ahuja vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner 150 ITR 696 (P&H) 5. CIT vs. Deepak Kumar 232 CTR 78 (P&H) 6. Pawan Garg vs. ACIT 94 ITR (AT) 159 (Chd. Trib.) 19. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. It has been submitted that plea of mistake, even if it is a bona fide mistake, cannot bail out the assessee from levy of penalty; that non furnishing of evidence to support the claim made does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income; and that the order under appeal has correctly confirmed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 (P&H), the assessee had furnished a Certificate from the Sub-Divisional Engineer of the PWD, to the effect that the distance from the Sonepat Municipal Committee to the concerned village, where agricultural land was purchased, was 8.2 KMs. Various certificates were also available, wherein, distance had been mentioned regarding the property in question. The Hon'ble High Court held that on facts, there was no intention on the part of the assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars and, hence, no concealment penalty could be levied on the assessee. In the case at hand also, as discussed, there was no intention on the part of the assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars. 24. In 'Manoj Ahuja Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner', 150 ITR 696 (P&H), following 'Smt. Nirmal Khosla Vs. Union of India', AIR 1976 Punjab & Haryana 22, it was held that no litigant should ordinarily suffer for a mistake of his counsel. Delay in filing the appeal, incurred due to wrong calculation by the counsel, was condoned. In the case before us also, undisputedly, depreciation was claimed on the basis of working of the auditors. 25. In 'CIT Vs. Deepak Kumar', 232 CTR 78 (....