TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 - SMT DIVA SINGH AND SHRI T.S.KAPOOR, JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. Ved Jain Ms. Rano Jain, CA For the Respondent : Ms. Meenakshi Vohra, Sr. DR ORDER Per: Diva Singh: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 08.02.2012 of CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi pertaining to 2008-09 assessment year on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) is bad both in the eye of law on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming penalty of Rs.1,02,51,384/- under section 271(1)(c) levied by the A.O. on the disallowance on account of deferred revenue expenditure. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the appellant that there was a bonafide inadvertent omission in not adding the book amount in the computation of income and facts relating to same have been fully disclosed. 4. On the facts and circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.28 B Recruitment Expenses 1. Advertisement for Recruitment 0.87 2. 2. Recruitment Expenses paid to NTPC 1.39 2.26 C Expenditure on secretarial works 1. Payment to Registrar of Companies for enhancement of Share Capital 19.99 2. Stamp Duty for enhancement of Share Capital 2.50 3. Payment to Registrar of Companies for enhancement of Share Capital 0.13 22.62 Total: 30.16 2.1. Considering the assessee's submission advanced on behalf of the assessee the sum and the substance of which was that the expenses had been incurred in the 2006-07 financial year, the AO required the assessee to explain why they should not be disallowed. In response to the same, the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs. This mistake would have gone unnoticed if the case was not selected was scrutiny. After introduction of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) the onus to prove that as to why penalty should not be levied is on the assessee. 2.3. He further held that his view was fortified by judgement dated 24.05.2010 in the case of CIT vs Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 3. Aggrieved by this the assessee came in appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The penalty order was assailed raising arguments that neither the assessee had concealed any portion of his income nor has the assessee furnish any inaccurate particulars of his income as such it was claimed that the penalty order should be quashed. The record shows that following facts were brought to the notice of the CIT(A) in support of the said claim. These are extracted from page 3 of the impugned order hereunder for ready-reference:- Facts of the case 1. The assessee is a public sector undertaking engaged in the business of generation of power and regasification LNG. 2. The return for assessment year 2008-09 was filed on 30.09.2008 declaring a loss of Rs.49,44,80,72 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty order. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. In the above background, Ld. AR inviting attention to the assessment order submitted that on account of inadvertent error deferred revenue expenses were incorrectly claimed and as soon as the mistake was pointed out by the AO, the assessee accepted the same. It was argued that it is a matter of record that no inaccurate particulars were filed by the assessee and nor had the assessee concealed any particulars of its income as full and complete disclosure on facts was made by the assessee. The return filed it was submitted was accompanied with computation of income duly audited balance sheet and P L Account. It was emphasized that the assessee is a public sector undertaking and the same has to be treated on a different footing as has been held by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dena Bank u/s 1AC (1997) 25 ITD 109 (Bom.). In the case of a public sector company there can be no personal interest, the mistake was a bona fide mistake and which as soon as it was pointed was immediately accepted and corrected. Attention was invited to Paper Book Page No-11 which contains copy of the P L Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
