2021 (7) TMI 1237 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, finding no inaccurate income particulars

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, finding that the assessee did not furnish ... Penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) - expenditure incurred on construction of Bus Queue Shelter - Revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- Penalty was initiated and levied in earlier years but was deleted 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. Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] held that merely making a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 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) 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 Revenue is dismissed. Issues Involved:- Appeal against penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10.- Determination of whether the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars during assessment proceedings.Analysis:Issue 1: Appeal against penalty order under section 271(1)(c)The Appellant, DCIT, Special Range 5, New Delhi, filed an appeal seeking to set aside the penalty order dated 31.03.2016 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The grounds for appeal included contentions that the penalty of Rs. 2,22,52,985 imposed was erroneously deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) and that the expenditure incurred on the construction of Bus Queue Shelter was of capital nature, leading to inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO initiated penalty proceedings based on disallowance of expenses held to be capital in nature, which the assessee contested by claiming full disclosure of facts in the return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty, prompting the Revenue to appeal before the Tribunal.Issue 2: Determination of inaccurate particulars of incomeThe central question for determination was whether the assessee concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income during the assessment proceedings. The Revenue argued that the acceptance of quantum by the assessee without filing an appeal amounted to inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the assessee relied on previous orders in AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09, where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal reviewed the previous orders and the arguments presented, emphasizing the distinction between capital and revenue nature of expenses incurred on Bus Queue Shelters.The Tribunal referred to the decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that merely making an unsustainable claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal further analyzed the facts in AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09, concluding that claiming expenditure on construction of Bus Queue Shelters as capital in nature did not constitute inaccurate particulars of income. Citing the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.In summary, the Tribunal found that the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars of income, considering the nature of the expenses incurred on Bus Queue Shelters. The decision was based on legal precedents and a thorough analysis of the facts and arguments presented by both parties.