|CORAM:||Diva Singh (JM), Sudhakar Reddy (AM)|
|CATCH WORDS:||furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty, wrong claim vs. false claim|
|COUNSEL:||R. S. Singhavi|
|DATE:||September 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||November 14, 2014 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|S. 271(1)(c): No penalty can be levied for a bona fide "wrong" claim which is not a "false" claim|
The addition by way of disallowing the depreciation claimed has rightly been made in the quantum proceedings which fact has been accepted by the assessee by filing a revised return and not agitating the issue further. Considering the explanation offered by the assessee in the penalty proceedings, it is seen that repeatedly it is claimed that the return was finalized on the basis of figures appearing in the Sale Deed. This fact has not been disputed by the department and is found to be supported from the assessment order itself. In the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances, considering the fact that even after the said addition the assessee was allowed business loss to be carried forward to the extent of Rs.2.96 crore odd, we have no hesitation in following the judicial precedent relied upon to hold that the explanation offered is bonafide and deserves to be allowed. It is seen that at best the claim of the assessee can be called a wrong claim and by no stretch of imagination on the facts as they stand can it be called a false claim. We have taken into consideration the order of the coordinate bench relied upon in the case of Vasudev Pahwa vs. ACIT (cites supra) and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) which was subsequently followed by the Apex Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 25 Taxmann.com 400 (SC).