Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. As regards the penalty based on addition on account of difference in rate of depreciation on computer peripherals, the Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee made a wrong claim of depreciation @ 60% on printers, UPS, computer stationery, routers and scanners by clubbing them with the computers. As per Assessing Officer these items fall in the category of office equipments for which depreciation is available @ 15%. It was also observed that assessee had clubbed the license fees paid for the software with the computer and the software were not purchased with their source codes and such software were eligible for depreciation @ 25%. Thus, the Assessing Officer worked out excess depreciation of Rs.73,48,472/- and added the same to the income of assessee. Based on this addition penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was imposed. The contention of the assessee has been that similar claim of the assessee stood accepted in earlier years. Moreover, in quantum appeal of assessee for the year under consideration, the Tribunal has upheld the decision of ld. CIT(A) that all these items are subject to depreciation @ 60% barring the items like digital call logger board & software protection, Nortel equipment, headsets and time attendance system, which do not satisfy the criterion of being computer peripherals and are subject to depreciation as plant and Machinery. The ld. CIT(A) has thus given substantial relief to the assessee restricting the disallowance to only Rs.1,63,257/-. It was therefore, submitted that there being difference in the opinion of the Assessing Officer and that of various other authorities on this issue, it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. DR opposing the contentions of the assessee supported the orders of the authorities below on this score. We find substantial weight in the contention of the assessee. It is notable that complete details/facts relating to the assets on which depreciation was claimed were furnished before the Assessing Officer and as such it can hardly be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income merely because the claim of assessee was not, in the opinion of Assessing Officer, sustainable in law. For this view, we stand fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC). No contrary material is placed on record on behalf of the Revenue to support the penalty imposed on the basis of difference in the rate of depreciation. Accordingly, the penalty based on this addition deserves to be cancelled.