9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 3. That the Ld CIT(A) erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has concealed income and has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income so as to attract the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. That the impugned order passed by the Ld CIT(A) is without any application of mind and in complete ignorance of settled legal position in respect of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act. 5. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming penalty for concealment without appreciating that mere rejection of a claim/deduction does not tantamount to concealment of income. 6. That the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty levied by the Assessing Officer despi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , maintain and deal in ICAM systems with programmable logic controller which are commonly termed as process control computers. The return of income declaring income of Rs..22,02,96,522/- was filed on 8.12.2006. As per Point No.9 of Notes of accounts filed along with return of income the assessee had stated that it has incurred an expenditure of Rs..51,50,021/- during previous year on account of interior and electrical works carried out in the lease hold office premises which were claimed as revenue expenses in the return of income. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 29.12.2009 held this amount to be capital expenditure and therefore disallowed the same as revenue expenditure and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not found to be bona fide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not liable to penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before Ld CIT(A) and submitted as under to highlight the fact that expenses incurred by it were of revenue nature and also submitted that addition made by Assessing Officer due to difference in opinion in respect of an expenditure cannot attract provisions of section 271(1)( c):- i) That in these days the use of computer and intrernet in office work and design work has become extensive and therefore their use in a company engaged in producing industrial process control computers creating software will be much more extensive and almost each worker having a com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to be incorrect or inaccurate by the Assessing Officer but there was only a difference of view. While the appellant considered it as revenue expenditure, the Department took the view that it was of capital in nature. Reliance was placed in a number of cases wherein similar kind of expenses were incurred by the assessee and the same were held to be revenue nature. 1) Installment Supply Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 149 ITR 52 (Del.). 2) Silver Screen Enerprises v. CIT 85 ITR 578 (P&H). 3) CIT v. Volga Restaurant 253 ITR 405 (Del.). 4. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal 317 ITR 1 wherein certain additions were made by the Assessing Officer which were not cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld and these grounds of appeal are rejected." 6. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 7. The Ld AR at the outset, stated that quantum of appeal was not filed just to buy peace of mind. He argued further that non filing of quantum appeal does not mean that assessee was liable to penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. He further argued that complete details of particulars of income were filed and these were not found to be incorrect by the Assessing Officer. He particularly invited our attention to point No.9 of Notes of accounts forming part of computation of income (placed at page 4 of the paper book) wherein the fact of claim of Rs..51,50,021/- as revenue expenses was disclosed and Assessing Officer himself r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee vide point No.9 of Notes to computation of income had brought the fact before Assessing Officer. The expenditure claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure and held by Assessing Officer as capital expenditure is a matter of opinion and courts had given different opinions in respect of such items at different times. So we can say with certainty that expenses claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure was based upon the nature of expenses and assessee had relied upon various judicial pronouncements in support of its claim and from any angle it cannot be said that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The facts of the case law relied upon by Ld CIT(A) relating to CIT v. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (supra) ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
