M/S.LAXMI POLYCHEM INDIA LIMITED,GADAG vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1420/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 September 2016AY 2006-20073 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for claiming unabsorbed depreciation that had already been utilized in a prior year. No submissions were made to support the claim of a clerical error.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07. The penalty was related to the claim of set off of unabsorbed depreciation from assessment year 2001-02, which had already been set off in assessment year 2005-06.

What were the issues?

Whether the claim of set off of unabsorbed depreciation, which was already utilized in a prior year, constitutes a valid explanation to avoid penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘SMC’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER

For Respondent: Shri Naresh Saka, JCIT

O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by the assessee. This is directed against the order of learned CIT (A), Hubli dated 31.03.2016 for A. Y. 2006 – 07.

2.

The assessee has raised 2 grounds but the only grievance of the assessee is about penalty of Rs. 80,000/- imposed by the A.O. u/s 271 (1) (c) of the I. T. Act, 1961.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of date of hearing having been indicated in Acknowledgement cum notice issued to the assessee at the time of filing of appeal and there is not even any request for adjournment and hence, this appeal is heard ex parte qua the assessee. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A).

4.

I have considered the facts of the case and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. As per the order of CIT (A), it is seen that it is noted by CIT (A) that written submissions filed before him are the same which were filed before the A.O. in penalty proceedings. I also find that in the penalty order, the A.O. has reproduced the written reply dated 24.04.2010 filed by the AR of the assessee before him. As per the same, I find that there is no explanation about the claim of Set Off of Unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 224,784/- relating to A. Y. 2001 – 02 in spite of this fact that such Unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 224,784/- relating to A. Y. 2001 – 02 was already set off in A.Y. 2005 – 06 and how the non existing claim in the present year is a clerical error. The entire explanation is this that depreciation as per I T Rules was reduced and Depreciation as per books was not added back but facts are entirely different because as per the copy of revised computation made available on record, book depreciation of Rs. 477,903/- was very much added back by the assessee before claiming depreciation as per I T Rules Rs. 452,158/- and copy of original computation is not brought on record. But the returned income is Rs. 460,780/- as per the assessment order and assessed income is Rs. 738,483/- after disallowance of Rs. 52,920/-. Hence the net difference in the returned income and assessed income before this disallowance of Rs. 42,920/-, is Rs. 224,784/- being the amount of Unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 224,784/- relating to A. Y. 2001 – 02. No submission is made in support of this contention that this claim is a clerical error.

Hence, I feel that there is no infirmity in the orders of the authorities below and therefore, I decline to interfere.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

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 →