Commissioner Of Income Taxlarge Taxpayer Unit, Delhi v. Indian Renewable Energy

$~8 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA No. 294/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXLARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, DELHI ..... AppellantThrough :Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Mr.Raghvendra Singh, Senior StandingCounsel for Revenue. versus INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY ..... RespondentThrough :Mr. Rohit Jain & Mr. Aniket D.Agarwal, Advocates. CORAM:JUSTICE S. MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH % O R D E R22.08.2017 1. This appeal by the Revenue is filed against an order dated 29[th]May 2015bytheIncomeTaxAppellateTribunal(‘ITAT’)inDelhiinITA No. 542/Del/2013 relating to the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2003-04. 2. The question urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was justified indeleting the penalty imposed on the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act? 3. The brief facts are that the Assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 64 lakhs onaccount of the fees paid to the Registrar of Companies (‘ROC’) for ITA 294/2016 Page 1 of 3 enhancement of capital under the head ‘Administrative Expenses’ andshowed it as such in the Profit & Loss (P&L) Account. 4. The case of the Revenue was that even though the amount in questionmay have been claimed as ‘Administrative Expenses’ it was in fact a capitalexpenditure as held by the Supreme Court in its decision in Punjab StateIndustrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 792 (SC). 5. The ITAT has, in the impugned order, referred to the decision in CIT v.Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) in coming to theconclusion that this was not a case of concealment of material particularswhich would warrant a levy of penalty. 6. Mr. Ashok Manchanda, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue,urged that the ITAT erred in observing in para 20 in the impugned orderthat, in the computation of the income filed by the Assessee, the above factswere disclosed. He has produced a copy of the revised computationstatement filed by the Assessee where there is no such specific disclosureregarding the above claim as ‘Administrative Expenses’. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Assessee placed before us acopy of the P&L Account of the Assessee for the AY in question where thefact of the said amount being claimed as ‘Administrative Expenses’ isclearly mentioned in the notes to the accounts. He points out that theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] noticed this and thenproceeded to revise the assessment order under Section 263 of the Act. ITA 294/2016 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel of the parties,the Court is of the view that the decision of the ITAT was a plausible one inthe facts and circumstances of the case. The Court is unable to agree withthe Revenue that there is a deliberate concealment by the Assesseewarranting the levy of penalty. 9. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is, accordingly,dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. AUGUST 22, 2017j PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.