2024 (7) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), dated 12.03.2015 for AY 2012-13. 2. The solitary issue raised before us in the present appeal is in respect of penalty imposed by the ld. AO of Rs.53,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made on account of difference in depreciation on biometric device by treating it as part of 'Plant and Machinery' block instead of part of 'Computer' block. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee carries on business of development, maintenance and management of Mahaonline portal for providing web-based services by government to citizens, government to business and other portal services of government of Maharashtra. It filed its return of income on 27.09.2012 reporting total inco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e made in the assessment or upheld in the appellate proceedings. He placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) and pointed out the observations and findings arrived at by the Hon'ble Court on the similar issue addressed by it. The same are noted as under: 1. Mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claims made in the return of income cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 2. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not excepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion or rejection of a claim is a subjective exercise and whether a claim is accepted or rejected has nothing to do with furnishing of inaccurate particular particulars of income." 5.1. He thus submitted that the penalty so imposed ought to be deleted. 6. Per contra, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. She asserted that assessee did furnish inaccurate particulars and intentionally claimed a higher rate of depreciation @ 60% instead of permissible rate of 15% by treating the biometric devices as part of block of computers, instead of block of plant and machinery. According to her, assessee was well within the knowledge that such devices form part of the block of plant and machinery. Despite knowing this, asses....