1 itxa5824.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 5824 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-7 ...Appellant. Vs. M/s Repro India Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. Not on board. By consent of the parties taken on board. 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is a question raised in this appeal. 3. In the present case, the dispute was as to whether the advertisement and other expenses claimed by the assessee were capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee that the said expenses were revenue in nature. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by ITAT by holding that the expenditure was revenue expenditure. The appeal filed by the revenue against the said order is pending before this Court. 2 itxa5824.10.sxw 4. Question in the present case is whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The fact that the assessee bonafide believed that an expenditure was allowable as revenue expenditure is not in dispute. In such a case, rejection of a claim made by the assessee, would not constitute concealment or furnishing in-accurate particulars of income so as to attract Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. In this view of the matter, deletion of penalty by the ITAT cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) ( J.P. DEVADHAR , J.)