IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM ITA NO. 345/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S DESTINATION INDIA PROJECTS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT, C IRCLE 10(1) C 362, BASEMENT FLOOR C.R.BDLG. DEFENCE COLONY NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN: AACCD6885F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:- MS.RANO JAIN/SH.V.MOHAN, CAS. RESPONDENT BY:- SH.SUKHVEER CHAUDHARY , SR.D.R. O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-XVIII DATED 11.11.2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND HAS CLAIMED AS REV ENUE EXPENDITURE THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES. I. FILING FEES RS. 99,714 II. STAMPING AGAINST INCREASE OF AUTHORIZED CAPITAL RS. 7,425 III. MISC. EXPENSES RS. 1,890 -------------- RS. 1,09,029 ========== ITA NO: 345/DEL/2012 PAGE 2 OF 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 DESTINATION INDIA PROJECTS (P) LTD. 2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THESE EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PUNJAB STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT C ORPORATION 225 ITR 792, BROOKE BOND INDIA LTD. 225 ITR 798. PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS L EVIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF ITS INCOME AND ALSO CONCEALED ITS INCOME. ON APPEAL, THE FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS I N APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. AFTER HEARING MRS.RANO JAIN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND MR.SUKHVEER CHOUDHARY, LD.SR.D.R. ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- 4. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE YEAR 1996 HAS L AID DOWN THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL ETC. ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE WHILE FILING ITS RETURN OF IN COME IN THE YEAR 2009 MADE AN EX FACIE ILLEGAL CLAIM. UNDER THE CIRCUMST ANCES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY WAS RIGHT IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD. (20 10) 191 TAXMAN 179/ 233 CTR 465(DEL), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLO WS:- A MERE MAKING OF A BONAFIDE CLAIM DOES NOT RESULT INTO ANY CONCEALMENT AND/OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICU LARS EVEN IF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. BUT WHERE NOT ONLY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS INCORRECT IN LAW BUT IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ITA NO: 345/DEL/2012 PAGE 3 OF 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 DESTINATION INDIA PROJECTS (P) LTD. 3 NOT FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE LIA BLE FOR PENALTY. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH DECEMBER,2012. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: THE 10 TH DECEMBER, 2012 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT (A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR ITA NO: 345/DEL/2012 PAGE 4 OF 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 DESTINATION INDIA PROJECTS (P) LTD. 4 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR ON: 3. DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE SECOND MEMBER ON: 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER ON: 5. APPROVED DRAFT CAME TO SR.P.S. ON: 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7. FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK ON : 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GIVEN TO HEAD CLERK ON: 9. DATE OF DISPATCHING THE ORDER ON :