Madhya Pradesh High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Skyline Auto Products P. Ltd. on 26 April, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2005)193CTR(MP)72, [2004]271ITR335(MP)
Author: A.M. Sapre
Bench: A.M. Sapre
JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J.
1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, we are of the opinion that this second appeal filed by the Revenue (Income-tax Department), under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated July 30, 2003, in I. T. A. No. 22/Ind of 1998 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has no merit. In other words, in our opinion, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out for the purpose of entertaining the. appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. The only question which is involved in the appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty imposed upon the assessee by the Assessing Officer under section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not proper. In the opinion of the Tribunal and in our opinion rightly, it was a case of a bona fide mistake rather than a deliberate mistake on the part of the assessee while calculating depreciation on the assets of the assessee. It was found that the assessee is a new businessman and he could only claim depreciation for a fraction of the year and not for the full year-that being the first year of starting the production as claimed by the assessee. We do not find that such can be a good ground for imposition of a penalty by the taxing authorities. It has been said long back by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26, that merely because taxing provisions provide for a power to impose penalty that does not entitle the authorities to impose a penalty for every breach howsoever venial or technical it may be. In order to impose penalty the authorities must see the conduct and deliberate intention on the part of the assessee in concealing his true income. In our view no such case seems to have been made out. We thus concur with the view so recorded by the Tribunal and hold that this does not involve any substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, as being devoid of any substance.