9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 626 - AT - Income TaxPenalty under section 271(1)(c) - disallowance of expenditure - bifurcation of expenditure one on account of interest payment of ₹ 40,76.035/- and second on account of misc. expenditure of ₹ 2,32,282/- - CIT(A) deleted the penalty levy - Held that - This is the first year of the company operation. The company has only been set up in this year and the only activity performed by the company is purchase of lands. In this purchase the assessee has incurred interest expenditure. The assessee has also incurred routine administrative expenditure necessary to run the company. The company has also written off preliminary expenses. As regards the issue of debiting the routine and administrative expenses and preliminary expenses to the profit and loss account, we find that it cannot be said that it is a bogus or wrong claim. Hence, levy of penalty on disallowance of these expenses cannot be sustained. As regards the issue of charging off in the profit and loss account, the interest expenditure we note that same was incurred on the purchase of land. Assessee has not started any specific project. Hence, the interest expenditure incurred in this regard has been charged to the profit and loss account. The above charging of all the expenditure to the profit and loss account cannot be said to be ex-facie bogus claim. It is certainly a debatable issue. When the matter is debatable, the assessee cannot be visited with the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
Assessment of loss claimed by the company, disallowance of expenses, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c), distinction between assessment and penalty proceedings, accuracy of particulars furnished by the assessee, justification of penalty imposition, debatable nature of expenditure claims, relevance of legal precedents in penalty proceedings. Analysis: Assessment of Loss Claimed by the Company: The company, in its first year of assessment, claimed a loss of Rs. 43,08,317 without conducting any business activities. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire loss, categorizing interest payment as capital expenditure and miscellaneous expenses as pre-operative, leading to a NIL income assessment. The disallowance was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) and ITAT. Penalty Imposed under Section 271(1)(c): In penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer alleged that the company concealed income by filing inaccurate particulars, imposing a penalty of Rs. 14,51,000. However, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the company disclosed all material facts and expenses, concluding that there was no concealment or inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was canceled. Distinction Between Assessment and Penalty Proceedings: The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized the distinction between assessment and penalty proceedings, stating that findings in assessment are not conclusive for penalty imposition. It was held that the Assessing Officer must reconsider all material before levying penalties under section 271(1)(c). Accuracy of Particulars Furnished by the Assessee: The company disclosed all expenditure in the profit and loss account, indicating no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The absence of any bogus expenditure further supported the argument against penalty imposition. Debatable Nature of Expenditure Claims: Considering it was the company's first year of operation with no active business, the expenditure claims, including interest expenses and administrative costs, were debatable. The Tribunal found the claims not ex-facie wrong, supporting the company's position. Relevance of Legal Precedents in Penalty Proceedings: Legal precedents, such as the CIT vs. Lokhandwala Construction India Ltd. case, were cited to support the debatable nature of expenditure claims in the company's situation. The Tribunal concluded that the company's claims were not ex-facie bogus, aligning with the principles laid down in relevant legal judgments. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing the debatable nature of the company's expenditure claims in its initial year of operation.
|
