DELFAB GLOBAL PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 1(4), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6256/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 January 2022AY 2012-135 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to appear and substantiate its grounds or controvert the findings of the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed excess depreciation due to claiming it for 365 days instead of 180 days. Upon being pointed out by the AO, the assessee surrendered the excess amount. The AO initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the claim of excess depreciation, though surrendered, constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars of income warranting penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 32

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 06.01.2022

The present appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 10/11/2016 impugned passed by CIT-(A), Gurgaon in Appeal No. 264/15-16 of the Assessment Year 2012-13, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the order of the AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act 1961 („Act‟ for short).

2.

None appeared for the Assessee. Though notices for hearingson dated 07.06.2021 18.8.2021 02.11.2021 and 06.01.2021, wereissued by the Registry to the Assessee at the declared address in Form No. 36, however the said notices returned backby postal department with endorsement “LEFT”, resultantly the Assessee could not be served, hence we deem it appropriate to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that, the A.O. vide Assessment order dated 10/3/2015completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by determining the loss of Rs. 6,23,818/-as against claimed loss of Rs. 11,86,348/- by the Assessee . The Assessee has also claimed depreciation u/s 32 (i)(ii) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 11,25,000/- but the A.O found that correct depreciation has to beRs. 5,62,500/- only. The Assessee claimed before the A.O that, the depreciation has wrongly been claimed for 365 days instead of 180 days and therefore surrendered the difference in favour of the Revenue and consequently, returned loss of Rs. 11,86,348/- was reduced toRs. 6,23,848/-. However the A.O while passing the Assessment order, opined that the Assessee hadfurnished inaccurate particularof income to the extent of Rs. 5,62,500/-.

4.The proceedings of penalty were initiated against the Assessee u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act and a show cause notice was issued to the Assessee as to why an order imposing penalty should not be made u/s 271 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, in response to which the Assessee filed a reply on 24/4/2015 stating as under:-

“The Assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 1125000.00 instead of Rs. 562500.00 by oversight during the year under consideration claiming depreciation for the full year instead of 180 days and the same has been surrendered by the Assessee in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, there was no intention of the Assessee to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to evade taxes.”

4.1. The above reply given by the Assessee was found not satisfactory, consequently the A.O. passed an order under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act on 21/09/2015 by imposing the penalty of Rs. 1,73,813/- which is 100% of tax being evaded.

5.

Aggrieved by the said order of penalty dated 21/9/2015, the Assessee has preferred an appeal before CIT(A), who after considering the grounds urged thereon, dismissed the appeal vide Order impugned, against which the Assessee has preferred the present Appeal.

6.Heard the Ld. DR, perused the orders passed by the Authorities below. We find that the Assessee company has claimed the depreciation of Rs. 11,25,000/- u/s 32 (i)(ii) of the Act in the original ITR. On perusal of the depreciation chart furnished by the Assessee the AO found that the Assessee is eligible for the depreciation of Rs. 5,62,500/- instead of Rs. 11,25,000/-. Once the AOpointed outto the Assessee regarding excess depreciation claimed, the Assessee repliedthat“depreciation was wrongly claimed for 365 days instead of 180 days” and therefore surrendered the same in favour of the revenue. The A.O. though considered the claim of the Assessee, however could not get satisfied and ultimately vide order 21/09/2015 imposed the penaltyof Rs. 1,73,813/- under Section 271(1)(a) of the Actfor furnishing of inaccurate particular of income.The CIT (A) confirmed the said Penalty Order by way of order impugned before us.

8.

The Assessee due to non-appearancebefore the Ld. CIT(A) and us as well, failed to substantiate the grounds urged and also failed to controvert the findings of the authorities below. Even from the orders passed by the authorities below, we could not find any reason to interfere with theimpugned Order, thus we are inclined not to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently the appeal of the Assessee deservesdismissal.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 06/01/2022.

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 →