Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM
O R D E R
Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member:
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 27.12.2018, passed by Ld. CIT(A), Mumbai in relation to penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2014-15.
M/s Real Team Systems Pvt. Ltd. 2. Assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs. 9,50,000/- in respect of disallowance of Rs. 27,08,548/- on account of excess claim of depreciation.
The facts in brief are that assessee is engaged in the business of IT Enabled services and also BPO services. The return of income declaring total loss of Rs. 2,01,97,785/- was filed on 27.09.2013. The Ld. AO on going through the working of depreciation noted that assessee company had claimed depreciation on higher rates and when the same was confronted, the assessee submitted that there was an error in taking depreciation number which was purely clerical error. The relevant submission reads as under:- We would like to bring to your notice that the error for depreciation number in. the filing is result of clerical error on the part of the staff of the assessing Chartered Accountant (Letter to the effect has been given by the same). So kindly consider this an inadvertent error which is to be corrected. The error persisted because of the extreme fine-print (usage of very small size in the excel sheet records). The number quoted matches exactly with the previous year assessment year number so should be condoned as a one time error since it was not deliberate on our part.
M/s Real Team Systems Pvt. Ltd. 4. The penalty has been levied by the AO on this excess claim of depreciation at Rs. 27,08,548/- which 100% works out to Rs. 9,50,000/-.
Ld. CIT(A) after discussing the law relating to penalty and various judgments without any discussion how such judgments are related to the facts has confirmed the penalty.
None appeared before us on behalf of assessee despite several notices were served, therefore the matter is being decided on the basis of material available of record and the submission made by Ld. DR.