TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished the complete detail and explanation about the claim and advance given then it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income - This issue is also a debatable issue and does not fall in the category of a bogus or absolute incorrect claim. Expenses for repair and maintenance - Held that:- The assessee has given the full details of the expenditure incurred on the repair and maintenance - When no finding by the authorities that any new asset came to existence as a result of this expenditure then the claim of the assessee cannot be termed as bogus or inherently not permissible - The claim is a highly debatable issue as well as a bonafide claim of the assessee and disallowance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied the penalty relates to claim of bad debts, repairs and maintenance and expenditure on taking working capital loan from bank. He has further submitted that all these claims of the assessee are bonafide. The penalty is not leviable merely because the claim of the assessee was disallowed by the A.O. He has pointed out that though the assessee did not challenge the order of the CIT(A) in quantum however there are various decisions of this Tribunal as well as High Court on this point wherein it has been held that these are allowable business expenditure. He has relied upon the following decisions as mentioned in para 3.1.2 of CIT(A): I. CIT Vs Abdullabhai Addulkadar (1961) 41 ITR 545 (SC) II. Roop Narain Ram Chandra Vs Addl. CIT (1978) 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owance of expenses claimed under repair and maintenance of Rs. 4,49,478/- the CIT(A) has deleted the addition to the extent of Rs. 2,12,890/- and confirm an addition of Rs. 2,00,980/- on this account. The last addition on account of processing fee and stamp duty was deleted by the CIT(A) in quantum appeal. Thus, the A.O initiated the penalty proceeding with respect to the disallowance confirm by the CIT(A) on account of bad debts to the extent of Rs. 16,17,240/- and on account of repair and maintenance expenditure to the extent of Rs. 2,00,980/-. The A.O levied the penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- while passing the impugned order u/s 271(1)(c). On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied by the A.O by holding that the claim of the assessee wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot fall in the category of a bogus or absolute incorrect claim. As far as the disallowance of expenses under repair and maintenance to the extent of Rs. 2,00,980/- we find that the assessee claimed total expenditure of Rs. 4,49,478/- under this Act which was disallowed by the A.O by treating the same as capital in nature. Part of the claim has been allowed by the CIT(A) as revenue expenditure and rest was disallowed when the assessee withdrawn the same. Though the claim of the expenses to the extent of Rs. 2,00,980/- on account of repair and maintenance was disallowed by the CIT(A) on concession given by the assessee however this issue of treatment of the expenditure as revenue or capital is a highly debatable and contentious issue. We find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
