DCIT-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per Bench:

Feeling aggrieved by three separate orders of first-appeal, all dated 22.08.2024 and all passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of respective penalty-orders, all dated 30.03.2019 and all passed by learned ACIT-2(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], for assessment-years [“AY”] 2012-13 to 2014-15, the revenue has filed these appeals.

Page 1 of 13

M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos. 772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15

CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty imposed by AO u/s 271(1)(c).

Learned Representatives agree that the underlying facts are identical in all

three cases, therefore we have heard these appeals analogously and are

going to dispose of by this common order for the sake of clarity, convenience

and brevity. Both sides argued the facts of first appeal being ITA No.

772/Ind/2024 of AY 2012-13 citing the same as a lead case and agreed that

the adjudication made therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to all other

appeals.

way of scrutiny u/s 143(3) through order dated 27.03.2015 wherein he

made a disallowance of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- out of Repairs and Maintenance

Expenses (incurred for Building Rs. 3,12,25,675/- + Others Rs.

1,50,73,533/- + Garden Rs. 20,88,183/-). We re-produce below the entire

assessment-order passed by AO, out of which Para 4 is related to the

impugned disallowance:

Page 2 of 13

M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos. 772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15

Page 3 of 13

M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos. 772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15

Page 4 of 13

M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos. 772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15

imposing a penalty of Rs. 98,00,000/- qua the impugned disallowance of Rs.

2,00,00,000/- made in assessment-order. Aggrieved by penalty so imposed,

the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and made a detailed submission

which is re-produced by CIT(A) in para 4.5 / Pages 4 to 9 of impugned order.

After being satisfied with assessee’s submission, the CIT(A) passed following

order reversing the action of AO and deleting the penalty:

Page 5 of 13

M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos. 772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15

“7. DECISION

I have carefully considered the facts on record and the applicable law in this regard. 7.1 Ground No. 1 to 3 are related to levy of penalty of Rs. 98,00,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 when the assessee has not committed any such default. The appellant is a PSU of Madhya Pradesh government and in the business of running hotels and resorts. The case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny and an addition of Rs. 2 crore on account of disallowance in respect of repair and maintenance was made by treating the expenditure as capital in nature which was claimed as revenue expenditure by the appellant. During the penalty proceedings, the appellant made the submissions and pleaded that it is not liable for penalty for concealment as all the details were disclosed to the department and it has genuine belief that these expenses are revenue in nature. The AO did not agree with the contention of the appellant and levied penalty @100% on the addition made of Rs. 2 crore by holding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by wrongly debiting capital expenses to profit and loss account. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant has filed statement of facts which are reproduced above. The appellant is contending that this year none of the expenses relating to capital nature has been debited under the head repairs and maintenance and all the expenses are revenue in nature incurred for business purpose. The appellant has further pleaded that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable if basis of addition is adhoc disallowance. In this regard, the appellant has relied on various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts and Tribunals wherein it was categorically held that the penalty cannot be imposed in respect of additions made on the basis of estimation. It has been held in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts that no penalty can be levied upon rejection of a bonafide claim of a tax payer if such claim is highly debatable. In the case of DCIT Vs. Rural Electrical Coop Society Ltd. Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that every concealment does not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act until and unless it is deliberate and intentional being in the knowledge of the assessee. The appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. V/s. ACIT in which it was held that the claim of revenue expenditure may not be justified and disallowance can be made but when the assessee had made a complete disclosure of details of expenditure and claimed it as revenue expenditure in the return of income, thus no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) could have been levied. The appellant has further relied on the case of M/s. Bhatia Corporation Pvt. Ltd. V/s. ACIT of ITAT Jaipur in which it was held that merely because expenditure claimed is disallowed and treated as capital expenditure the same cannot be basis of levy of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Page 6 of 13

M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos. 772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15

The appellant has incurred certain expenses which were treated as revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business by the assessee and claimed as revenue expenses. However, the AO did not agree with the contention of the assessee and a part of the expenses were treated as revenue and balance amount was treated as capital expenditure. Whether any expenditure is a capital expenditure or revenue expenditure is a matter of debate and always subjective. The disallowance in such cases is always adhoc and on estimation basis. Same is the case in the case of the appellant where the AO did not agree with the claim of the appellant regarding revenue expenses and disallowed part of the expenses as capital. Considering the case laws relied upon by the appellant and facts it is held that the case of the appellant does not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Respectfully, following the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court, High Courts and Tribunals it is held that the appellant is not liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied of Rs. 98,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby deleted. These grounds are allowed.” 5. Before us, Ld. DR for revenue/appellant submitted that the AO has

imposed penalty qua the disallowance of Repairs & Maintenance expenses

made by him in Para No. 4 of assessment-order (reproduced earlier).

Referring to the notings made by AO therein, Ld. DR submitted that the AO

has made disallowance following the same tune of earlier assessment-years

wherein a similar disallowance was made by AO and the same was also

upheld by CIT(A)/ITAT. He submitted that the AO has clearly noted his

objection that on verification of bills and vouchers produced by assessee, it

was found that certain bills/vouchers were relating to expenses of capital

nature but the assessee had claimed deduction as revenue expenditure

which was not acceptable. He submitted that the assessee has not contested

the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by AO before higher appellate

forums and thereby accepted AO’s action of disallowance. He submitted that

by claiming capital expenses as revenue, the assessee has furnished

Page 7 of 13

M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos. 772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15

inaccurate particulars of income and therefore the AO was justified in

imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c). He strongly supported the penalty-order

passed by AO.

assessee is a state-owned corporation. He submitted that the assessee has

maintained regular books of account and the books so maintained were

audited by statutory auditors. He submitted that during assessment-

proceedings, the assessee produced bills and vouchers of repairs and

maintenance expenses to AO and this fact is clearly acknowledged by AO

himself. He submitted that the AO has mentioned two reasons for making

impugned disallowance, namely (i) similar disallowance made in earlier

years was upheld by CIT(A)/ITAT and (ii) on verification of the bills and

vouchers, it is found that certain bills/vouchers relating to expenses were of

capital nature. He submitted that these observations made by AO very

clearly show that the AO has made disallowance in a routine manner. He

submitted that the AO has himself noted assessee’s stand “The assessee

vide its reply dated 16-03-2015 submitted that this year, none of the

expenses relating to capital nature debited under the head ‘Repairs and

Maintenance’. All the expenses are of revenue nature and incurred for

business purpose. The assessee also produced bills and vouchers for the

same expenses”. He submitted that the AO has made a casual remark that

“certain bills/vouchers” were of capital nature but not cited a single

Page 8 of 13

M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos. 772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15

instance of such incident. He submitted that the AO has made a

disallowance of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- which is just an adhoc/lump sum figure.

He submitted that it is a settled law that the no penalty can be imposed for

adhoc/lump sum addition made on pure estimation. Further, it is also a

settled law that the assessment-proceedings and penalty-proceedings are

two distinct and independent proceedings. He submitted that an adhoc/

lump sum disallowance made by AO in assessment-order, even if not

contested by assessee before higher forum in appeal for any reason, does

not mean that it would necessarily follow the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). He

submitted that the CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned order holding that

penalty is not imposable in such a case of adhoc/lump sum disallowance.

He submitted that in coming to such a conclusion, the CIT(A) has very

rightly placed reliance on judicial rulings as mentioned in his order. He

submitted that the order of CIT(A) does not suffer from any error, perversity

or adversity, his order must be preserved.

perused the orders of lower-authorities. In present case, the AO initially

made a disallowance of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- in assessment-order and

thereafter imposed penalty of Rs. 98,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) by penalty-order.

In first-appeal against penalty-order, the CIT(A) has reversed AO’s action

and deleted penalty. Now, the revenue has come in appeal before us

assailing the order of CIT(A) and claiming that the penalty imposed by AO

Page 9 of 13

M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos. 772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15

was in order. Thus, we are required to adjudicate as to whether the section

271(1)(c) was applicable in the facts of present case or not.

reads as under:

“271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) If the Assessing Officer …….. in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person – XX (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, XX he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty … Thus, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposable only if a person ‘has concealed

the particulars of his income’ or ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of income’.

In present case, Ld. DR for revenue is claiming that the assessee has

‘furnished inaccurate particulars of income’ and hence the AO has imposed

penalty. On perusal of assessment-order, we find that the AO has made a

disallowance of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- out of Repairs and Maintenance Expenses.

The AO has cited two-fold reasons for making such a disallowance, namely (i)

similar disallowance made in earlier years was upheld by CIT(A)/ITAT and (ii)

on verification of the bills and vouchers, it is found that “certain

bills/vouchers” relating to expenses were of capital nature. Thus, in the first

instance, the AO has merely followed the tune of earlier year but it is

Page 10 of 13

M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos. 772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15

noteworthy that the assessee categorically submitted to AO (such

submission of assessee is recorded by AO in assessment-order itself) that

during this year none of the expenses relating to capital nature was debited

under Repairs and Maintenance; all expenses were revenue; and the

assessee also produced bills and vouchers of expenses. Secondly, the AO

has made a generalized remark that “certain bills/vouchers” were of capital

nature but he has not given a single instance of such adverse observation.

That apart, the AO has made an adhoc/lump sum disallowance of Rs.

2,00,00,000/-. Therefore, the Ld. AR is very much correct in claiming that

this is a case of pure estimation by AO, there is no case of ‘furnishing

inaccurate particulars by assessee’ as being claimed by Ld. DR. The Ld. DR,

though dutifully supported the penalty-order passed by AO, could not

convince us as to how it would be a case of ‘furnishing inaccurate

particulars’? Therefore, we agree in line with numerous judicial rulings

available in public domain (a few of which have been mentioned by Ld. CIT(A)

in impugned order. Since we have already re-produced CIT(A)’s order in

earlier part of this order, we do not wish to repeat those rulings for the sake

of brevity) that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where

addition/disallowance is based on estimation.

not been argued by either side but is certainly noteworthy. In assessment-

order of AY 2012-13 (already re-produced above in earlier para), the AO has

Page 11 of 13

M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos. 772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15

made only impugned disallowance of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- but nowhere the AO

has whispered that the said disallowance represented ‘inaccurate

particulars of income’ submitted by assessee or that the proceeding u/s

271(1)(c) shall be initiated. Although in AY 2013-14 & 2014-15, vide Para

1.5 of assessment-orders, the AO has mentioned thus:

“1.5 I am also satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming expenses on account of capital expenditure. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Therefore, the penalty-order of AY 2012-13 is unsustainable for this very

reason also that there is no satisfaction recorded by AO in assessment-order

qua any default having been committed by assessee attracting penalty

proceedings of section 271(1)(c). In fact, one can say that the AO was

considerably aware that the estimated adhoc/lump sum disallowance

cannot attract penalty. Furthermore, it can also be gainfully said that the

AO cannot treat the assessee as defaulter of section 271(1)(c) in AY 2013-14

& 2014-15 when the situation is just same as in AY 2012-13.

DR for revenue that the assessee has not contested the issue of disallowance

made in assessment-order by way of appeals in higher appellate forums.

This argument of Ld. DR does not have substance because in the scheme of

Income-tax Act, 1961 the assessment-proceedings and penalty-proceedings

are two separate and distinct proceedings and the assessee is not precluded

Page 12 of 13

M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos. 772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15

from contesting penalties even while accepting assessment-orders. There are

numerous decisions holding this proposition.

CIT(A) that the penalty was not imposable in present case. Accordingly, we

approve the order passed by CIT(A) and the appeal of revenue is dismissed

being devoid of merit. This conclusion, as stated earlier, shall apply to all

three appeals.

Order pronounced in open court on 26/06/2025

Sd/- Sd/-

(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indore िदनांक/Dated : 26/06/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 13 of 13