9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this regard, it is observed that the small amount of bank loan of ₹ 9,70,966/- has been used for three components i.e. building furniture and equipment at different stages therefore, the assesssee has claimed such part of expenses as revenue expenditure instead of claiming depreciation on capitalization of such expenses. In the light of the above facts, we do not find it appropriate to consider that there is a case of furnishing inaccurate particular of income. Therefore, we are of the view it is not justified to levy penalty. Revenue receipt received as per TDS certificate which was not credited in the P & L a/c, we observe that the assessee has failed to substantiate with any material that why the impugned receipt was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of interest till the date of putting of use of assets. In response the assessee has explained that no portion of interest was capitalized in respect of machineries as there was no time difference requiring the same as to acquisition and put to use. In this connection, the assessee has explained that it has inaugurated Kaizen Hospital on 27h Nov, 2011 and furnished the detail of interest in the period 01-04-2011 as under:- Particulars Total For Building I- or Furniture For Equipments Interest on Loan from State Bank of India 1,49,175 22,449 1,26,726 Int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explain why the penalty on the aforesaid addition should not be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act. The assessee has explained that there was only disallowance/addition but noting has been proved to show concealment of income which was envisaged u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act. The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products 322 ITR 158 (2010). The assessing officer was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and held that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and also failed to substantiate reasonable and satisfactory explanation therefore the assessing officer had levied penalty of ₹ 527468/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act. 4. Aggrieve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claiming depreciation on capitalization of such expenses. In the light of the above facts, we do not find it appropriate to consider that there is a case of furnishing inaccurate particular of income. Therefore, we are of the view it is not justified to levy penalty on the impugned amount of ₹ 9,70,966/-. However in respect of revenue receipt of ₹ 1,07,359 received as per TDS certificate which was not credited in the P L a/c, we observe that the assessee has failed to substantiate with any material that why the impugned receipt was not disclosed in its income. Therefore, we consider that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of ₹ 1,07,359 and we justify the action of the assessing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
