2012 (7) TMI 426

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... w, by itself, would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding income of the assessee. Such a claim made in a return not amounting to furnishing of inaccurate particulars” - penalty is not leviable especially when the issue is debatable - assessee has not concealed any particulars of income or furnished any inaccurate particulars - penalty levied by the revenue on the issue of unrealizable fixed deposit kept in bank written off due to cessation of the functioning of the bank deleted - ITA No.423/Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2012 - SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, JJ. Appellant by Shri U. S. Bhati, AR Respondent by Shri B. L. Yadav, Sr. DR O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: Thi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... O made the addition on the premise that the assessee is not engaged in financing business and the amount written off is a fixed deposit kept in the bank and at the best it represents a capital loss and is not admissible as revenue expenditure. The learned AO further initiated penalty proceedings. In the penalty proceedings, the learned AO levied a penalty of 100% of tax sought to be evaded on this addition of Rs.3,25,186/- since the assessee had opted not to press this ground in the quantum appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned AO further held that any inadvertent mistake and wrong claim of capital expenditure under the head revenue expenditure tentamounts to furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. 4. On appeal before the l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e. 5. The learned AR argued before us stating that the issue was debatable as to whether such loss on account of unrealizable fixed deposits kept in bank is capital or revenue in nature. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee had not appealed before the first appellate authority because of the smallness of amount and to avoid long litigation. The learned AR further relied on the decision of the case CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. , 322 ITR 158 (SC) and prayed that levy of penalty by the revenue may be deleted. The learned DR on the other hand, strongly relied on the order of the learned AO and the first appellate authority and prayed that the penalty levied may be confirmed. 6. We have heard the rival submissions a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X