TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) X, New Delhi, has erred in law as well as on facts and in circumstances of the case by wrongly appreciating the facts on the ground of opportunity to the assessee. 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XIX, New Delhi, has erred in law as well as on facts and in circumstances of the case by upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c), by the AO, without considering the material available on record. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing." 3. The assessee company is a public limited company engaged in the business of trading of television picture tubes. This appeal is preferred again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t been capitalized and was shown under the head 'Fixed Assets' as capital work in progress. No depreciation was ever claimed. Since the machine was not capitalized and had to be eventually written off, the Assessee claimed the loss as a revenue loss. The Assessing Officer accepted that there was a loss but declined to accept it as a revenue loss. 5. Subsequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 were initiated on the issue of write off of capital work-in-progress as afore said. The Assessing Officer issued notice dated 18-04-2012 fixing the date of hearing for 24- 04-2012 which was received by the assessee on 24th itself. Vide Letter dated 27-04- 2012, the assessee sought time for filing a reply but the AO proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowed as revenue expenditure. It was further submitted that in the present case, the assessing officer himself has admitted that there is a loss but did not accept this loss as revenue expenditure but has treated this loss as a capital expenditure. Hence it is debatable issue on which no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposable. He submitted that the penalty ought to be deleted. 8. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and emphasized that since the assessee was not pressing for addition in the quantum appeal before the ITAT, it was obvious that the assessee accepted that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, the penalty order ought to be upheld. 9. We have heard the rival submissions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....271(l)(c) is not leviable." 10. On the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 2463 of 2010 order dated 17.3.2010 is squarely applicable. In this case it has been held that the law laid down in the Dilip Shroff case {291 ITR 519 (SC)} as to the meaning of word 'concealment' and 'inaccurate' continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textiles case was only that part in Dilip Shroff case where it was held that mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that if the contention of the revenue is accepted then in case of every return w....