Cera Sanitaryware vs ACIT: ITAT Ahmedabad on Section 271(1)(c) Penalty for Bona Fide Depreciation Claim

This case examines whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 — for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income — can survive where the underlying claim that was disallowed in quantum proceedings was a bona fide, disclosed, and professionally supported claim. The ITAT Ahmedabad, in ITA No. 59/Ahd/2014 for Assessment Year 2007-08, ruled in favour of Cera Sanitaryware Ltd. and deleted the penalty, drawing a clear line between a wrong claim made openly and a deliberate act of concealment.

This page is a research summary of one specific Indian tax judgment, NOT legal advice. Always verify against the full judgment and consult a professional for case-specific guidance.

---

The case at a glance

• Parties: Cera Sanitaryware Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT (OSD) Range-1, Ahmedabad
• Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
• Date: 4 January 2017
• Court level: Tribunal (ITAT)
• Sections engaged: 271(1)
• Outcome: Taxpayer succeeded

---

Facts of the case

Cera Sanitaryware Ltd., a limited company engaged in manufacturing and trading of ceramics, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08 on 29 October 2007 declaring a total income of Rs. 11,43,52,419/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During assessment proceedings under Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer made several additions totalling Rs. 47,89,841/-, including a disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 7,80,826/- on a Mumbai showroom building.

The depreciation claim arose because the assessee had purchased the showroom building on 5 March 2007 for Rs. 1,51,18,160/- and thereafter commenced construction of a "Bath Studio" within it. The work of furnishing and fitting out the Bath Studio ran from March 2007 to 31 May 2007. The assessee claimed depreciation on the full cost of the building for AY 2007-08 on the ground that the building was owned and put to use for business purposes — the use being the commencement of construction activity within it. The Assessing Officer rejected this, holding that the building was put to use only upon completion of the Bath Studio on 31 May 2007, i.e., after the end of the relevant financial year (FY 2006-07), and accordingly no depreciation was allowable. Both the CIT(A) and a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal (ITA No. 744/Ahd/2011) confirmed the disallowance in the quantum proceedings.

Following the confirmation of the quantum disallowance, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated and penalty was levied on the basis that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by making a wrong depreciation claim. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, observing that the error could not be characterised as bona fide given that the date of user was clearly shown as 31 May 2007 in the assessee's own capitalisation records, making the claim of depreciation for FY 2006-07 evidently incorrect. Aggrieved, the assessee brought the matter to the Tribunal.

---

Issues raised

• Whether the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was sustainable on the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 7,80,826/- when the underlying quantum disallowance had already been confirmed.
• Whether a depreciation claim made openly, supported by an audited set of accounts and a Chartered Accountant's audit report, and grounded in a debatable legal position as to when an asset is "put to use," amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income.
• Whether the absence of any intent to conceal, combined with full disclosure of all relevant facts on record, bars imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

---

What the court held

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(A), deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The operative finding recorded by the Tribunal was that the assessee had committed a bona fide error and had no intention of concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a large limited company with a declared income exceeding Rs. 11 crore, maintains audited books of accounts, and had claimed depreciation on the Mumbai showroom building with a reasoned legal basis — namely, that the building was a separate asset in itself and that business use had commenced from the date the Bath Studio construction activity began in March 2007. This position was supported by the auditor's report of a Chartered Accountant. All material facts concerning the date of purchase, the date the Bath Studio was completed, and the quantum of the claim were fully disclosed and available on record. The Assessing Officer did not uncover any hidden information; rather, the claim was rejected on a legal interpretation of when an asset is "put to use" for the purposes of depreciation.

The Tribunal distinguished between a case where facts are suppressed or misrepresented and a case where a taxpayer advances a legal claim in respect of fully disclosed facts and that claim is ultimately rejected. A wrong claim, made knowingly as a valid claim and supported by professional certification and disclosed records, does not constitute the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c). The co-ordinate bench's earlier rejection of the depreciation claim in quantum proceedings was confined to the legal merits of whether the asset was "put to use"; it carried no automatic finding of concealment for penalty purposes.

---

Strategy observations

1. Full disclosure as a shield against penalty: The assessee ensured that all facts relating to the date of purchase (5 March 2007), the date of completion of the Bath Studio (31 May 2007), and the quantum of the depreciation claim were fully disclosed and documented during assessment. The Tribunal's reasoning rested centrally on the absence of any concealed or withheld information.

2. Audit certification as corroborating evidence of bona fides: The depreciation claim was supported by the audit report of a Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal recorded this as evidence that the claim was made as a genuinely held legal position, not as a deliberate misfiling.

3. Separation of quantum and penalty proceedings: The fact that the assessee lost the quantum appeal before both the CIT(A) and the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal (ITA No. 744/Ahd/2011) did not foreclose success in the penalty appeal. The Tribunal treated the two proceedings as legally distinct — the correctness of the claim for tax purposes and the existence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars are separate inquiries.

4. Precedents on "put to use" cited in quantum proceedings: In the earlier quantum appeal, the assessee had relied on decisions including CIT vs. India Tea & Timber Trading Co. (221 ITR 857, Gauhati HC), Capital Bus Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (123 ITR 404, Delhi HC), CIT vs. G.N. Agrawat (217 ITR 250, Bombay HC), and CIT vs. Vayithri Plantations (128 ITR 675, Madras HC). The existence of this body of case law, cited before the co-ordinate bench in the quantum round, reinforced the Tribunal's conclusion in the penalty round that the legal position was at least arguable and the claim was not frivolous.

5. CIT(A)'s reliance on Dharmendra Textile not determinative in penalty context: The CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty placing reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in the Dharmendra Textile matter. The Tribunal's allowance of the appeal indicates that, on the facts of this case, the element of mens rea — or at minimum the element of inaccuracy attributable to the assessee's own conduct rather than a legal dispute on disclosed facts — was found to be absent, making the Dharmendra Textile principle inapplicable on these specific facts.

---

Why this case matters

This order reinforces a well-recognised but frequently contested distinction in Indian income-tax penalty jurisprudence: the fact that a deduction or exemption claim is disallowed in quantum proceedings does not, by itself, justify imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal's finding that a claim backed by full disclosure, audited accounts, and a professional audit report constitutes a bona fide error — even if wrong in law — draws a principled boundary around the penalty provision's reach.

For in-house tax teams and practitioners, the case illustrates the recurring pattern in depreciation disputes where the "put to use" question generates genuine legal uncertainty, particularly for assets acquired near year-end and fitted out or commissioned shortly after. The Tribunal's approach of examining the state of disclosure and the credibility of the legal position advanced, rather than treating a failed quantum claim as automatically attracting penalty, aligns with the broader line of ITAT and High Court decisions insisting on proof of concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars before Section 271(1)(c) is invoked.

---

Source

This case is drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals. Original document: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114657858/