9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.03.2016 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), qua the assessment year 2009-10 on the grounds inter alia that :- "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,22,52,985/- imposed u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1 961 . 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271 (1)(c) by not appreciating the facts that the claim of the assessee in relation to expenditure incurred on construction of Bus Queue Shelter is of capital nature. The assessee too did not press the ground before the Hon'ble ITAT which tantamount to furnishing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Ld. DR for the Revenue challenging the impugned order contended inter alia that when the assessee has accepted the quantum by not filing appeal, it amounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and that expenditure incurred by the assessee on the construction of BQS is capital in nature. However, on the other hand, ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) and further contended that earlier order passed by the ld. CIT (A) in AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09 on identical facts have been confirmed by the Tribunal vide order dated 14.01.2020 (supra). 6. In the backdrop of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleted by ld. CIT (A) and his order has been confirmed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal on the ground that when the assessee has brought on record all the true and material facts in the return of income, it is merely a difference of opinion if these expenses are to be treated as capital or revenue in nature and is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (S.C.).(supra) held that merely making a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars by returning following findings :- "A glance at the provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 suggests that in order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars." 10. Ld. CIT (A) has thoroughly thrashed the facts at hand in AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09 and during the year under assessment in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. We are of the considered view that by claiming expenditure incurred by the assessee on construction of BQS for and on behalf of New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) and Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to the tune of Rs. 8,72,92,281/- as capital in nature does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. So, ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the penalty and finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, the appeal filed by the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
