M/S. ASIAN FOOD INDUSTRIES,NADIAD vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NADIAD

Relevant facts appear to be in a narrower compass. The assessee had claimed depreciation on two trucks purchased worth Rs.45,30,930/-. It claimed consequential depreciation on the ground that the said assets had been put to use for its business purposes in the relevant financial year. The Assessing Officer noticed during scrutiny that the assessee had paid vehicle tax on 15.04.2011 followed by registration thereof on 19.04.2011. He therefore disallowed depreciation claim in question of Rs.3,39,846/-. This followed the impugned penal action being finalized in penalty order dated 26.09.2014 herein the Assessing Officer held the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars as well as concealed its income so as to impose the impugned penalty as upheld in the lower appellate proceedings.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions against and in support of the impugned penalty. There is no dispute that the sole issue relevant to the impugned penalty is that of assessee’s depreciation claim on the above two trucks disallowed in quantum proceedings on the ground that the same had been registered in April 2011 (supra). We however notice from the case file that the relevant purchase bill at page 24 & 25 are dated 22.03.2011 i.e. in relevant previous year. It therefore emerges that the assessee’s impugned depreciation claim based on the fact that the relevant trucks formed part of the block of assets in question immediately after purchase is neither false nor baseless. The question however is of the entitlement year only. We accordingly are of the opinion that the same cannot be treated as either furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act as per hon’ble apex court’s landmark judgment in

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.