9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -99 on 30.11.1998 declaring total income of Rs. 24,08,800/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 28.02.2001 and the total income was determined at Rs. 63,88,440/- after making disallowance of technical know-how expenditure U/s. 35AB of Rs. 40,62,344/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 28.11.2002 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. On the disallowance of know-how expenditure u/s. 35AB of Rs. 40,62,344/-. A.O. vide order dated 28.04.2009 levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 14,21,820/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 21.01.2010 dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . A.R. submitted that Assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income with respect to its claim of technical know-how licence fees paid. It was further submitted that under Foot Note No. 5 of the notes attached with the statement of total income filed with the return of income, the disclosure about the treatment of technical know-how fees was made by the Assessee. He pointed to the computation filed by page 2 to 4 of the paper book. The ld. A.R. further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, Assessee has furnished all the required details before A.O. He pointed to page 5 & 6 of the paper book being the copy of the letter written to A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings. In support of its conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. He thus supported the order of A.O. and CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that Assessee in its books of accounts had considered the technical know-how expenditure as deferred Revenue expenses but its return of income had claimed the deduction of technical know-how fees as Revenue expenses. It is also a fact that in the computation of income furnished by the Assessee, it had disclosed the accounting treatment given to it by way of note. The claim of Assessee u/s. 37(1) was not allowed by the A.O. but instead of the claim of only 1/6th of the expenses was allowed u/s. 35AB of the Act. Before us, the ld. A.R. has submitted that the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the assessee had concealed any income. We are of the view that in the absence of complete and convincing corroborative evidence, the Revenue may justify addition, but in the matter of penalty proceedings, the onus lies heavily on the Revenue to prove that the assessee had concealed its income or has filed inaccurate particulars of its income. We also find that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 has held as under:- "The argument of the revenue that "submitting an incorrect claim for expenditure would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income" is not correct. By no stretch of imagination can the making of an incorrect claim in law tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
