BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1012/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 June 2022AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not on account of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had claimed the expenditure in good faith, believing it to be revenue in nature.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed Rs. 81,20,388 as building repair and maintenance expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 45,09,274, holding it to be capital in nature, and levied a penalty of Rs. 13,93,365.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the disallowance is based on a difference of opinion regarding the nature of expenditure (revenue vs. capital) and not on concealment or inaccurate particulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI

Hearing: 23.06.2022Pronounced: 23.06.2022

ORDER This present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23.07.2019 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] pertaining to AY 2012-13.

2.

The assessee in this case has agitated the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

3.

There is delay of 16 days in filing of the appeal. A separate application has been filed for condonation of delay. Considering the facts pleaded in the condonation application of the assessee, the delay is condoned.

4.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee during the year claimed the Revenue expenditure of Rs.81,20,388/- on account of building repair and maintenance expenses, out of which the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.45,09,274/- holding the same as capital in nature.

The Assessing Officer also initiated the penalty proceeding on account of aforesaid disallowance and imposed the penalty of Rs.13,93,365/-.

5.

The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer.

6.

The assessee, thus, come in appeal before this Tribunal.

7.

I have heard the rival contention and gone through the record.

Apparently, this case is neither of concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee in its bona fide belief had claimed the expenditure as revenue expenditure, however, the Assessing Officer finding some of the items as of enduring benefit held that the expenditure on those items was capital in nature. However, the facts on the file suggests that the aforesaid disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Therefore, the impugned penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is not justified and the same is hereby quashed.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.06.2022.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →