Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 538 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act - Bar of limitation Held that:- The assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) on quantum before the ITAT - The ITAT disposed of the appeals of the assessee on quantum order dated 11.2.2011 - the penalty order has been passed within the limitation prescribed u/s 275(1)(a) of the Act - The assessee has claimed the expenditure as revenue in nature on account of certain business activities, one of them being trading in cloth - This claim of the assessee has been found to be bogus not only by the AO and CIT(A), but also by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings - the trading business in cloth is bogus - the incurring of expenditure by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 2,12,36,953 has not been disputed by the Departmental authorities as well as by the Tribunal. When there is no dispute to the claim of expenditure itself, the only difference is with regard to nature of expenditure - the assessee is claiming it as revenue, the finding of the Department which is also confirmed by the Tribunal is, it is of capital nature - difference of opinion with regard to the nature of expenditure would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, when fact remains that the assessee has disclosed full particulars of expenditure incurred not only in its books of account but also in the return of income filed as well as during the assessment proceedings. The assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income Relying upon CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - every expenditure/deduction claimed by the assessee in the return of income when disallowed would automatically not lead to the conclusion that the assessee has either concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income - imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not called for - This is due to the fact that there is always a difference of opinion with regard to an expenditure being revenue or capital - When the incurring of expenditure has not been disputed, the assessee cannot be accused of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income merely for the reason that the expenditure claimed is held to be of a capital nature thus, the penalty is set aside Decide in favour of Assessee.
|