2017 (2) TMI 736 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) - Disallowance of claim of repairs and maintenance expenses - Held that - As decided in the case of the assessee itself for AY 2006-07 the issue that whether Repairs and Maintenance in respect of leased buildings was revenue or capital in nature or whether the part of the Foreign Travelling Expenses were for the business purposes of the assessee is clearly debatable in nature. This is a case where the assessee has disclosed all the material facts necessary for assessment at the time of filing of the return itself. The conduct of the assessee in this case was bonafide. In these facts of the case, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on building by the revenue.
2. Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A) on repairs and maintenance expenses disallowed by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Depreciation on Building
The revenue contended that depreciation on the building was not allowable as the asset was not put to use during the relevant period due to the absence of business activity. The revenue argued that the case laws cited by the assessee were not applicable as the entire block of assets had not been put to business use. However, the Tribunal found that the building was utilized for business purposes, and the asset was indeed put to use. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not challenge the deletion of penalties by the CIT(A) on various additions, and the grounds raised lacked justification. The Tribunal, in line with the decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's case for the previous assessment year, upheld the deletion of penalties by the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.

Issue 2: Confirmation of Penalty on Repairs and Maintenance Expenses
The Assessing Officer disallowed a sum for repairs and maintenance expenses, treating them as capital expenditure. The disallowance was upheld by the CIT(A) and subsequently led to the imposition of a penalty. The Tribunal observed that the expenses were related to flooring and growth cutting, which were considered capital in nature. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities that the expenditure did not qualify as current repairs and was more aligned with the creation of new assets. The Tribunal noted that the penalty was confirmed based on a decision of the Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal, considering the bonafide conduct of the assessee and the debatable nature of the expenses, decided that it was not a fit case for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Following the decision of a coordinate bench, the Tribunal deleted the penalty levied on the disallowed expenses. As a result, the appeal of the assessee on this issue was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the disallowance of depreciation on the building and allowed the assessee's appeal against the penalty on repairs and maintenance expenses. The penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer were deleted in both cases, following the decisions of the CIT(A) and a coordinate bench.