TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-2011 of the CIT(A)-13, Mumbai on the following Grounds of Appeal: 1) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) erred in confirming the penalty order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c ) of I.T. Act without proper appreciation of facts and the case laws submitted before his Honour. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) erred in confirming the penalty order when the disallowa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 74,60,921/- under the head Repairs . On examination of the details furnished, it was observed that the appellant had incurred this expenditure for carrying out restructuring and modernising of its old dilapidated factory premises. AO treated the said expenditure as capital expenditure, whereas assesses had claimed it as Revenue expenditure. Disallowance made by the AO was upheld by the FAA and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the said expenditure as revenue, that the said expenditure was finally held to be capital in nature did not attract penalty provisions, that AO had not discussed as what were the inaccurate particulars, that there was difference of opinion between the AO and the assessee about the expenditure incurred, that in the Assessment Year (AY) 2000-01, on the same points, Tribunal had held that 50% of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings. In our opinion claim made by an assessee supported by documentary evidences, does not invite the invocation of provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars/concealing the particulars of income. Courts are of the view that quantum proceedings do not automatically result in imposing penalty for concealment; if a claim made by the assessee is rejected in assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
