Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6.1 On perusing the case referred by the Revenue it is apparent that they are distinguishable from the facts of the case before us. In the case of CIT V/s Zoom communications (P)Ltd.(supra), it was held that the claim of the assessee besides being incorrect in law, was malafide. In the case A. M Shah & Co. vs. CIT. Supra it was held that the assessee had clearly resorted to recording bogus purchases and non recording of certain items either in sales or stocks and therefore penalty was levied. In the case, ITO vs. Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd., the assessee had claimed extra shift allowance by altering the basis of the claim adopted by the assessee in the past which could not be comprehended particularly keeping in view of the fact that in the past depreciation had be claimed correctively. In the case CIT vs. Lalchand Tirath Ram, the assessee had not adduced sufficient evidence to prove that the excess stock did not belong to him. And finally in the case, Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT was not with respect to the facts that of the assessee. The assessee had mainly relied on the decision of the case C.I.T. v/s. Reliance Petrochemicals (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein it was held by the Hon Appex Court that " a mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law, be 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 before us it is apparent that the assessee had not concealed any information before the Revenue. The Auditor of the assessee had picked up a wrong figure of depreciation i.e, the depreciation worked out in accordance with Company Law in the computation statement for the purpose of Income Tax. This is a human error committed by the Auditor of the Company on which the assessee had no control. The assessee had not concealed any particulars but on the contrary readily accepted the error and paid tax ITA No. 3447/Ahd./2010 accordingly. Both, the computation of depreciation under Income Tax Act and Companies Act, was before the AO and the same was furnished by the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Appex Court relied upon by the assessee (supra). Therefore we hereby confirm the order of the Ld.CIT(A).