Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 579 - HC - Income TaxImposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Various additions made by AO - Held that:- The first addition made by the AO pertains to ad hoc disallowance out of various expenses debited in the P&L account - This disallowance has been made by the AO on the ground that in the immediately preceding year, the ratio of the expenses qua the total receipts is on the lower side in terms of percentage - This year, it has been increased and assessee failed to show the reasons for such an increase - it is an ad hoc disallowance AO has not pointed out that which particular submitted by the assessee is inaccurate - Therefore, no penalty can be imposed for this addition. Disallowance of bad debts Held that:- The reasons for making the disallowance is that assessee failed to furnish the basis of identifying the debt as bad and from which date it has become bad. W.e.f. 01.04.1989, the assessee is not supposed to demonstrate the fact that debt has become bad - Its allowance can be made only on the ground that such debt has been written off in the books - there is nothing in the assessment order which can justify the imposition of penalty - AO has not pointed out which particular pertaining to bad debt is incorrect. Ad hoc disallowance out of training and recruitment expenses - disallowance out of claim of depreciation Held that:- The assessee has claimed the depreciation on computer peripheral @ 60%, - relying upon Income-tax Officer, Ward-31(4), Kolkatta. Versus Samiran Majumdar [2005 (8) TMI 293 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B] - depreciation on printer etc. would be admissible @ 60% - there cannot be any disallowance, the AO did not point out which particular submitted by the assessee is incorrect - The Tribunal has enquired into each of the four heads in which additions were made, examined the nature and character of the addition and the explanation offered by the assessee and whether this would satisfy the needs and requirements of the Explanation No.1 - assessee has been able to discharge the onus in respect of each addition - The claim of the assessee in the return was bona fide and it cannot be that full and true particulars and details were not submitted before the AO thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld Decided against revenue.
|