WIDEANGLE FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), KOLKATA

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA �ी संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य एवं �ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद�य के सम� Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.63/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Wideangle Financial Services Ltd…….…................…...……………....Appellant 33/1, 4th Floor, R.N. 412, Marshal House, N.S. Road, Kolkata -1. [PAN: AAACW2477Q] vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri V. H. Jariwal, CA, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT-Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : March 20, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : March 20, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 22.12.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has agitated against the levy/confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the assessee had made an expenditure of Rs.7,00,000/- to get membership of OTC Exchange of India. The assessee claimed the said expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, the Assessing Officer treated the same

I.T.A. No.63/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Wideangle Financial Services Ltd as capital expenditure observing that the said expenditure was made for acquiring/obtaining of dealership which was capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and levied the impugned penalty which has been further confirmed by the CIT(A). 4. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. In our view, it is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is only a difference of opinion. Though, in view of the assessee, the said expenditure was a revenue expenditure, however, the Assessing Officer treated the said expenditure as capital expenditure ,but that itself, under the circumstances, is not a case of evasion of tax warranting the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The impugned penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Kolkata, the 20th March, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [डॉ�टर मनीष बोरड /Dr. Manish Borad] [संजय गग� /Sanjay Garg] लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य /Judicial Member Dated: 20.03.2024. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Wideangle Financial Services Ltd 2. ITO, Ward-6(4), Kolkata 3.CIT (A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

I.T.A. No.63/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Wideangle Financial Services Ltd //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches