TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenditure. The question whether an expenditure is capital or revenue is a debatable one, on which more than one view is possible. Having regard to these facts and decisions relied upon by the ITAT in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] & CIT Vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd [2010 (5) TMI 34 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein held that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of the income of the assessee - no infirmity in the reasons of the order of ITAT - in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 663/2012 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2012 - S. Ravindra And R.V. Easwar, JJ. Appellant Rep. by : Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, sr. standing counsel Respondent Rep. by : Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g officer was of the opinion that the conduct of the assessee amounted to willful and malafide making of a claim which was inadmissible in law. Penalty was consequently imposed. The assessee unsuccessfully appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned judgment the Tribunal noticed the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 (SC). The Tribunal thereafter, hold as follows : "7. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and have perused the material placed before us. We find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 005 addressed to ACIT, Circle-18(1), New Delhi reads as under:- The supporting bills, vouchers etc. are not available with us and they were with India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Government of India because they pertain to the period when the company was with them. The PAN of India Tourism Development Corporation Limited is AAACI0825J and they are being assessed at Circle 11(1), C.R.Building, New Delhi." 10. However, the Assessing Officer, without making any verification or enquiry from ITDC, disallowed the expenses. Non-production of the vouchers may be justified for disallowing the expenditure claimed by the assessee but, it cannot be held to be an act of concealment, specially when the assessee had a reasonabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith any bad intention. Merely because the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure, it would not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular. In view of the above, we, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. (supra) and of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (supra), cancel the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act." This Court has considered the submissions and is unimpressed with the revenue s contention that the assessee made a willful or malafide claim. One cannot be unmindful of the fact that the expenditure was primarily incurred by ITDC and at the stage when the return was filed the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
