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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 :-

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.

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