M/S ABHISAR BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5212/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2008-093 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides and perused the material. The specific details of the expenditure and the reasons for penalty levy are not fully elaborated in the provided text, but the appeal concerns the penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty was imposed on an expenditure of ₹12,04,457/- claimed by the assessee on account of fees paid.

What were the issues?

The primary issue is the validity and legality of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning a specific expenditure claimed by the assessee.

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, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVASHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shri Somil Agarwal and Shri Abhishek Anand, Advocates
For Respondent: Shri O.P. Meena, DR
Hearing: 12.05.2016Pronounced: 13.05.2016

PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP :- PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi dated 21st June, 2013.

2.

The only ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is against the levy of penalty of `3,72,177/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

3.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The assessee has claimed the expenditure of `12,04,457/- on account of fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for increase in its share capital. The assessee claimed the same as revenue expenditure which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer

1.

2 ITA-5212/Del/2013 treating the same as capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty thereon u/s 271(1)(c). In our opinion, the issue under consideration is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. – (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). In the said case, Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-

“Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.”

4.

The ratio of above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court would be squarely applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case. Admittedly, the details supplied by the assessee in its return of income are not found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. The Assessing Officer has disallowed fees paid to Registrar of Companies for increase in the share capital treating the same to be capital expenditure. Thus, it is a case where the assessee’s claim that the expenditure incurred is revenue expenditure is found by the Assessing Officer to be not sustainable in law. But, that, by itself, will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars so as to expose the assessee to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the act. Accordingly, we, respectfully following the above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, cancel the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 13.05.2016.

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 →