NOWROSJEE WADIA & SONS LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4228/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87895 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASGHAR ZAIN SR
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGEH THAR
• Keywords: Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

, ( ) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B B ENCH, MUMBAI . . , BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.4228/MUM/2012 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2001-02) M/S. NOWROSJEE WADIA & SONS LIMITED NEVILLE HOUSE, J.N. HEREDIA MARG, BALLARD ESTATE MUMBAI-400 001. / VS. DY. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (2)(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. MARG MUMBAI-400 020. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAACN 1836 A ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI YOGEH THAR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN - SR. AR / DATE OF HEARING: 12 / 01 /2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/01/2015 $ / O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 13/03/2012. T HE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE LEVY OF PENALTY AND CONFIRMATION O F PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO.4228/M/2012 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS DISALLOWED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE MADE IN RELATION TO REPAIRS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REVENUE EXPENDIT URE BUT HELD BY AO AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 3. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME NOR HAD CONCEALED ITS INCOME. HE HAS SUBMITTED, WHETHER EXP ENDITURE INCURRED ON REPAIRS WAS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPEND ITURE OR WAS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE. HENCE, PENALTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LEVIED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ON T HE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. MERELY BECAUSE CERTAIN CLAIM HAVE BEEN OBSERVED WHEN THE SAME WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE, THAT ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IN THIS C ASE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). EVEN THE ISSUE WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE I NCURRED ON REPAIRS WAS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE OR CAPITAL IS OTH ERWISE ALSO A DEBATABLE ISSUE. WE, ACCORDINGLY DO NOT FIND ANY JU STIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR LEVY OF PENAL TY IN THIS CASE. THE PENALTY LEVIED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES UNDER SECTI ON 271(1)(C) IN THIS CASE IS, THEREFORE, IS ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/01/2015. ITA NO.4228/M/2012 3 $ % &# ' (') 12/01/2015 & % SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (SANJAY GARG ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; (' DATED 12 /01/2015 . ' . ./ JV , SR. PS $ $ $ $ % %% % *+, *+, *+, *+, -,#+ -,#+ -,#+ -,#+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ./ / THE APPELLANT 2. *0./ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 1 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 1 / CIT 5. ,2 *+' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 3 4 / GUARD FILE. $' $' $' $' / BY ORDER, 0,+ *+ //TRUE COPY// 5 55 5 / 6 6 6 6 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.