2012 (10) TMI 1162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dt. 22-06-2011 of the CIT(A)-13, Mumbai on the following Grounds of Appeal: 1) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) erred in confirming the penalty order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c ) of I.T. Act without proper appreciation of facts and the case laws submitted before his Honour. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the appellant had claimed an expenditure of Rs. 74,60,921/- under the head 'Repairs'. On examination of the details furnished, it was observed that the appellant had incurred this expenditure for carrying out restructuring and modernising of its old dilapidated factory premises. AO treated the said expenditure as capital expenditure, whereas assesses had claimed it as Revenue expenditure. Di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e filed by the assessee, that assessee had treated the said expenditure as revenue, that the said expenditure was finally held to be capital in nature did not attract penalty provisions, that AO had not discussed as what were the inaccurate particulars, that there was difference of opinion between the AO and the assessee about the expenditure incurred, that in the Assessment Year (AY) 2000-01, on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e disallowed by the AO in assessment proceedings. In our opinion claim made by an assessee supported by documentary evidences, does not invite the invocation of provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars/concealing the particulars of income. Courts are of the view that quantum proceedings do not automatically result in imposing penalty for concealment; if a claim ....