Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 209 - ITAT DELHIDisallowance of principal payments made towards finance lease - allowable revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- It is well settled Law that rule of consistency do apply to the income tax proceedings. Therefore, the A.O. should not have taken out a different view in the assessment year under appeal, when similar claim of assessee have been allowed as revenue expenditure in earlier years. Nature of infrastructure facilities provided to the assessee on lease rent, it is clear that the same have been provided through Agreement for business purpose of the assessee. Since assessee used these items wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and was not the owner of the same, therefore, assessee rightly claimed the same as revenue expenditure and rightly claimed the deduction of the same. It is also well settled Law that the liability under the Act is governed by the provisions of the Act and is not depending on the treatment followed for the same in the books of account. It is also well settled that whether the assessee was entitled to a particular deduction or not, would depend upon the provisions of Law relating thereto, and not on the view, which the assessee might take of his right, nor could the existence or absence of entries in the books of account by decisive or conclusive in the matter. No justification to sustain the addition. We, accordingly, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition. Levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c) - disallowance of loss of 10B Unit, which claim of assessee have been allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) and addition have been deleted. - A.O. made further addition on account of finance lease and long term capital gains - HELD THAT:- Matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). It is well settled Law that CIT(A) while deciding the appeal of assessee shall have to mention point for determination and reasons for decision in the appellate order. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty merely because Ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the additions on quantum appeal. It is well settled Law that quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are independent and distinct in nature. CIT(A) shall have to give reasons for decision while confirming the penalty or deleting the addition. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and restore the penalty appeal to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee as per Law, giving reasons for decision in the appellate order. CIT(A) shall have to give reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
|