2023 (7) TMI 606 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - nature of the expenses which has been claimed by the assessee as to revenue or capital - HELD THAT - There is no new asset which has been created giving benefit of enduring nature. It is a case where the claim of the assessee of repairs to machinery and building as revenue expenditure has been characterized as capital in nature by the AO on which the penalty has been imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. As relying on case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT we are inclined to delete the penalty imposed by the ld. AO. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee are allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The sole issue involved in this appeal is the imposition of a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in relation to expenses claimed as revenue by the assessee.

Detailed Judgment:

Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c)
The appeal was filed against the order confirming the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO for claiming expenses as revenue which were characterized as capital in nature. The assessee, engaged in retailing petroleum, filed his return reporting income and faced scrutiny leading to a disallowance of certain expenses. The penalty was imposed despite the assessee's explanations, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: Nature of Expenses
The assessee contended that the repairs to machinery and building were essential for running the petrol pump business and were revenue in nature. The repairs were necessary due to the heavy traffic passing through the premises, and the premises being leased to an oil company for business purposes. The assessee argued that the repairs did not create any new enduring benefit but only improved working conditions, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) to support their claim.

Issue 3: Adjudication and Decision
The Ld. AO maintained that the expenses were of a capital nature due to their quantum, leading to the penalty imposition. However, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the Supreme Court precedent, found merit in the assessee's argument. It was concluded that no enduring benefit was created, and the expenses were revenue in nature. Relying on the decision in the Reliance Petroproducts case, the Tribunal decided to delete the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee.

Conclusion
The Tribunal, after thorough consideration and referencing legal precedents, allowed the appeal of the assessee, overturning the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) by the Ld. AO. The judgment was pronounced on 11th July, 2023.