Section 271(1)(c), read with section 32, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment

IT : Where revenue authorities passed penalty order taking a view that assessee had raised a false claim of depreciation, in view of fact that assessee brought all relevant particulars on record in support of its claim, impugned penalty order deserved to be set aside.
■■■
[2015] 55 taxmann.com 406 (Bombay)
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Commissioner of Income-tax
v.
Indusind Bank Ltd.*
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K. MENON, JJ.
IT APPEAL NO. 1293 OF 2012
SEPTEMBER  24, 2014
Section 271(1)(c), read with section 32, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Deduction wrongly claimed) - During relevant year, Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim for depreciation in respect of certain lease transactions on ground that said transactions were not genuine - He also passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for raising a false claim of deduction - Tribunal finding that there was no concealment of particulars of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, set aside penalty order - Revenue filed instant appeal raising a plea that even if assessee had approached Settlement Commission during some assessment years and accepted order of Settlement Commission, still it raised a false claim for depreciation during relevant year - Whether since all relevant particulars were available on record, plea raised by revenue had no merit - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, Tribunal was justified in setting aside impugned penalty order - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]
Vimal Gupta, Sr. Counsel, Ms. Padma Divakar and Vipul Bajpayee for the Appellant. Sanjiv Shah for the Respondent.