M/s. Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons Limited Neville House, J.N. Heredia Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 001. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (2) Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Marg Mumbai-400 020.
January, 15th 2015
, Û ( )
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " B" BENCH, MUMBAI
[^ .. , [ Û ¢
BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
([ [ / Assessment Year :2001-02)
M/s. Nowrosjee / Dy. Commissioner of
Wadia & Sons Vs. Income-tax (2)(2)
Limited Aayakar Bhavan
Neville House, J.N. M.K. Marg
Heredia Marg, Ballard Mumbai-400 020.
. / . /PAN/GIR No. : AAACN 1836 A
( /Appellant) .. ( / Respondent)
/ Appellant by : Shri Yogeh Thar
/Respondent by : Shri Asghar Zain-Sr. AR
/ Date of Hearing: 12/01/2015
/Date of 12/01/2015
/ O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee
against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 13/03/2012. The assessee
has agitated the levy of penalty and confirmation of penalty under
section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act.
2 ITA No.4228/M/2012
2. The brief facts are that the AO during the assessment
proceedings disallowed certain expenditure made in relation to
repairs claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure but held
by AO as capital in nature.
3. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee
has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor had
concealed its income. He has submitted, whether expenditure
incurred on repairs was allowable as revenue expenditure or was a
capital expenditure, was a debatable issue. Hence, penalty should
not have been levied by the lower authorities. On the other hand
the ld. DR has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.
4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that it is
not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or
concealment of income. Merely because certain claim have been
observed when the same was capital in nature, that itself is not
sufficient to justify for levy of penalty in this case under section
271(1)(c). Even the issue whether the expenditure incurred on
repairs was a revenue expenditure or capital is otherwise also a
debatable issue. We, accordingly do not find any justification on
the part of the lower authorities for levy of penalty in this case.
The penalty levied by lower authorities under section 271(1)(c) in
this case is, therefore, is ordered to be deleted.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12/01/2015.
3 ITA No.4228/M/2012
(B.R. BASKARAN) (SANJAY GARG )
/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Û /JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated 12 /01/2015
.../ Jv , Sr. PS
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. × / The Respondent.
3. () / The CIT(A)-
4. / CIT
5. , ,
/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. [ / Guard file.
/ BY ORDER,
× //True Copy//
, / ITAT, Mumbai.