Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Shiv Narain Khanna vs. CIT, Patiala, 107 ITR 542 (P&H);

10. Kedar Nath Sanwal Dass vs. CIT, 111 ITR 440 (P&H);

11. CIT vs. Gurbachan Lal, 250 ITR 157;

12. ACIT vs. Supreme Industries Ltd., (2009) (28 SOT 19);

13. Union of India & Others vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Others (306 ITR 277);

14. Dilip N. Shroff (2007) 8 Scale 304 (SC);

15. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd., 292 ITR 658;

4. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah (1994), 205 ITR 244;

5. CIT vs. Gurbachan Lal, 250 ITR 157;

6. ACIT vs. Supreme Industries Ltd. (2009) (28 SOT 19);

7. Union of India & Others vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Others (306 ITR

277);

8. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd., (183 Taxman 453) (Del.), 292 ITR 658;

9. CIT vs. RMP Plasto (P) Ltd., 184 Taxman 372;

11. In the light of aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, what is to be seen in the instant case, is whether the claim for deduction of depreciation was made by the assessee was bona-fide and whether at all the material facts relevant thereto have been furnished and once it is so established, the assessee cannot be held liable for concealment penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act . The Assessing Officer has not been able to establish that the claim of the assessee for claim of deprecaition00 was not bona fide or that any specific particulars were concealed or furnished inaccurate. A mere rejection of the claim of the assessee by relying on different interpretations does not amount to concealment of the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof by the assessee. Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158, after considering various decisions including Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/ 161 Taxman 218 (SC) and Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 / 174 Taxman 571 (SC) concluded that a mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In the case under consideration, there is nothing to suggest that the assessee furnished any inaccurate particulars or concealed the particulars. Admittedly, the claim for depreciation was there in the documents forwarded with the return. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the claim of the assessee that it had claimed the deduct ion in a bona fide manner.