9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), vide oder dated 26th July 2013. 2. At the outset, it has been submitted before us that in the quantum proceedings, most of the issues in relation to which the penalty has been levied have been set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer or has been deleted by the Tribunal. 3. The subject matter of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is mainly on account of following disallowances:- i) Non-allowance of reduction claimed in respect of income of Rs. 26,25,860 wrongly accounted in excess; ii) Disallowance of Rs. 13,02,100 out of payment to Mid-Day Outdoor Ltd; iii) Disallowance of professional charges and travelling expenses of Rs. 9,75,125; iv) Disallowance of "Notional A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts had been made at double rate. These details which had been filed first time before the CIT(A) have not been examined. In our view, to arrive at a fair decision in the matter, these details are required to be examined at the level of AO. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT (A) on this point and restore the issue to the file of AO for passing a fresh order after necessary examination and after allowing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the ground raised on this issue in assessment year 2001-02 and the additional ground for assessment year 2002-03 which is connected are restored to the file of AO." 6. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer on this score is set aside a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of MOL. But there was no clause for bearing the interest burden. He had therefore confirmed the disallowance of interest and the balance disallowance had been deleted. Thus we find discrepancies in the findings of CIT(A) in different years. The assessee has also claimed that it had not made any claim in assessment year 2002-03. We also note from page 78 of the paperbook for assessment year 2001-02, that the assessee has given details of expenses including details of assets. Whereas it is not clear whether these details were before CIT(A). We further note that AO himself has allowed 50% of expenses which means he has admitted the use of assets but has given no basis for disallowance of 50%. Therefore, in our view, the issue requires fresh e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses had not been claimed as revenue expenditure in the PL Account. Thus apparently there is no double claim of deduciton. However CIT(A) has also given a finding that there was no evidence that these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. This aspect has not been examined by the AO as he disallowed the claim on the ground that these were already included in the share issue expenses and claimed in the P&L account. We, therefore, restore the issue as to whether the expenses have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business to the file of AO for passing a fresh order after necessary examination and after allowing opportunity of hearing to the assessee." 10. In view of the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
