Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee

सव[ौी बी.आर बी आर. आर बाःकरण, बाःकरण लेखा सदःय एवं संजय गग[ Ûयाियक सदःय के सम¢ BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4228/Mum/2012 (िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year :2001-02)

M/s. Nowrosjee बनाम/ बनाम Dy. Commissioner of Wadia & Sons Vs. Income-tax (2)(2) Limited Aayakar Bhavan Neville House, J.N. M.K. Marg Heredia Marg, Ballard Mumbai-400 020. Estate Mumbai-400 001. ᭭थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AAACN 1836 A (अपीलाथᱮ /Appellant) .. (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / Respondent)

अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Yogeh Thar ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Asghar Zain-Sr. AR

सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख / Date of Hearing: 12/01/2015 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख /Date of 12/01/2015 Pronouncement :

आदे श / O R D E R

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 13/03/2012. The assessee has agitated the levy of penalty and confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act.

2 ITA No.4228/M/2012 2. The brief facts are that the AO during the assessment proceedings disallowed certain expenditure made in relation to repairs claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure but held by AO as capital in nature.

3. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor had concealed its income. He has submitted, whether expenditure incurred on repairs was allowable as revenue expenditure or was a capital expenditure, was a debatable issue. Hence, penalty should not have been levied by the lower authorities. On the other hand the ld. DR has relied upon the findings of the lower 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 case under section 271(1)(c). Even the issue whether the expenditure incurred on repairs was a revenue expenditure or capital is otherwise also a debatable issue. We, accordingly do not find any justification on the part of the lower authorities for levy of penalty in this case. The penalty levied by lower authorities under section 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.

3 ITA No.4228/M/2012 आदे श कȧ धोषणा खुले Ûयायालय मɅ Ǒदनांकः 12/01/2015 को कȧ गई ।

Sd/- Sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (SANJAY GARG ) लेखा सदःय / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ûयाियक सदःय/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; Ǒदनांक Dated 12 /01/2015 व.िन.स./ Jv , Sr. PS

आदे श कȧ ूितिलǒप अमेǒषत/Copy षत of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. ू×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयुƠ / CIT

5. ǒवभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai

6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file.

आदे शानुसार/ ार BY ORDER, स×याǒपत ूित //True Copy// उप/सहायक उप सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai.