TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1961(here-in-after referred to as "the Act") dated 20.03.2015 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. At the outset, we note that there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee for two days. The assessee accordingly filed the petition for the condonation of the delay. The ld. DR after considering the delay of 2 days has given concession for the condonation. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal filed by the assessee. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1) "The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous and bad in law and on the facts of the case. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has wrongly confirmed penalty le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....014 by submitting that there was no deliberate/mala fide intention either to conceal or furnish the inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, there is no question of levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As such, the assessee has claimed interest expenses considering it as revenue in nature which can be an inaccurate claim of the assessee. Therefore, the ultimate inaccurate claim made by the assessee cannot be equated with the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee and levied the penalty for Rs. 1,81,917/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded vide order dated 20.03.2015. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A). The assessee before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s explanation to be bonafide. In this regard it has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Balaji Infra Projects Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2627/Mum/2010 dtd. 13.4.2011. 3.4. During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant has submitted the detailed submissions which have been reproduced in the preceding paras of this order. The same have been carefully gone through. The appellant's objection that the AO has not prima-facie drawn the satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings is not correct in fact the penalty has been initiated in the assessment order and subsequently has been levied with the specific charge of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, It is noticed that the AO has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on identical facts as in the case of appellant and therefore, not applicable over the facts of the case. Thus, the reliance thereupon is misplaced. 3.6. Having considered the facts, it is noticed that the appellant was in knowledge of utilization of the funds for the purpose of purchase of immovable properties and the same have been shown as capital advances. Therefore, it should. have compared the provisions of law and the interest expenditure pertaining to such utilization of funds for capital purposes and the same not to have been claimed as revenue expenditure. But by doing so it has reduced its net profits and the returned income which is nothing but wrong claim made in the return of income by furnishing of inaccurate particulars o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee will be entitled to claim the deduction of the interest in the form of depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. However, if the investments are not subject to depreciation, then the assessee will be entitled to deduction of interest expenses at the time of sale of such investment in the market. Therefore, in either case, the assessee was eligible for the deduction of the expenses in the different form. In view of the above, it could not be concluded that the assessee deliberately claimed the interest as revenue expenditure. 8.1 Besides the above, we also note that the assessee has filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 8,52,704/-. Therefore if the assessee treats the interest expenses as capital in nature then also there was als....