TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. Brief facts are that the assessee company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of high quality of cement filed its return of income for all these three assessment years claiming additional depreciation on certain replacement of plant and machinery as integral part of plant and machinery. However, the Assessing Officer denied additional depreciation on replacement of certain parts of machinery on the ground that additional depreciation is allowed on acquisition and installation on new plant and machinery and not for replacement of plant and machinery already in existence/use. Similarly the Assessing Officer restricted the depreciation on coal shed and new GI sheets to 5% a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad made complete disclosure in its return of income tax audit report and have also provided all information as and when required by the AO and the NFAC. Therefore, the NFAC erred in holding that it is a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, whereas the case is fully covered by the Explantion1 to Section 271(1) of the Act. Hence on this ground alone the Impugned Order ought to be set aside. The Ld. Counsel submits that the NFAC grossly erred in upholding the penalty imposed by the AO without appreciating that the Appellant had made full disclosure in its return of income, tax audit report etc. and provided all information as and when required during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the allegation that the Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tained cannot be amounted to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there should be deliberation in filing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the NFAC erred in observing that the Appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of income merely because the Appellant's claims of depreciation had been disallowed by Hon'ble the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside for being passed without any application of mind even when the Appellant had specifically submitted that the Appellant had furnished all information as and when required by the AO and the NFAC, further the Appellant had neither suppressed nor misre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting the coal sheds and the new GI sheets placed at factory building as part of plant and machinery was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and restricted the depreciation and allowed treating the said assets as building other than residential. It is observed that the assessee has disclosed in its return of income the claim for depreciation and made the specific claim which was denied by the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT (Appeals). In my opinion there is only a difference of opinion whether these assets fall under plant and machinery or building other than residential. Similarly it is only a difference of opinion as to whether the additional depreciation is allowable on replacement of parts of machinery or not. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme....