MDLR AIRLINES (P) KTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1461/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 August 2022AY 2016-174 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the claim of depreciation, even if disallowed, was a bona fide claim and did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation on assets despite no activity during the year, leading to its disallowance. The Assessing Officer (AO) subsequently levied a penalty for filing inaccurate particulars of income.

What were the issues?

Whether a bona fide claim of depreciation, which is subsequently disallowed, warrants the levy of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. YOGESH KUMAR US

Hearing: 03/08/2022Pronounced: 05/08/2022

Appellant Sh. Gautam Jain, Advocate Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Respondent Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 03/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 05/08/2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-26, New Delhi dated 30.01.2020 pertaining to A.Y.2016-17.

2.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.1347640/- levied by the AO u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act.

3.

The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 21.12.2018 framed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act. The returned loss of Rs.71678656/- was assessed at total loss of Rs.6,73,17,373/-. The returned loss was reduced by disallowing the claim of depreciation of Rs.4361283/- which was disallowed by the AO in view of no activity carried during the year.

4.

Penalty proceedings were separately initiated for filing of inaccurate particulars of income.

5.

Vide order dated 27.06.2019 the AO levied penalty of Rs.1347640/- for producing inaccurate particulars of income.

6.

Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused.

7.

We find that similar depreciation was claimed by the assessee since A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16 and the AO was consistently disallowing the claim of depreciation but on none of the earlier assessment years the AO levied penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income.

8.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brahmaputra Consortium P. Ltd. 348 ITR 339 has held that inadvertent, bonafide, genuine claim of depreciation/ expenses does not call for levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Private Limited 322 ITR 158. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under :-

9.

In the light of the above stated decisions and after considering the facts we are of the considered opinion that there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee and, therefore, this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the penalty so levied.

10.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.08.2022.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →