9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income." 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/s 143(3) at the book profit of Rs. 53,98,386/-. In the course of the assessment proceedings the assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 1,30,302/- on account of excess interest paid. Apart from that he also made an addition by way of a disallowance of Rs. 22,62,376/- considering the expenses debited in the P &L account in regard to which the addition was made for want of explanation filed. These additions were accepted by the assesses as no appeals were filed. As a result of the additions having been accepted the AO required the assessee to explain why penalty u/s 271(1)(C) shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MAT provisions being a 115JB case was higher than a normal income in regard to which also satisfaction has been recorded. It was his submission that this fact has not been discussed in the impugned order. Accordingly it was his submission that the said issue has not been discussed by the CIT(A) and the order needs to be set aside and the penalty order be confirmed. 7. The Ld. AR on the other hand submitted that a perusal of the penalty order would show that penalty has been imposed only on account of disallowance of interest paid and disallowance of the expenditure claimed. The objection posed on the ground that in the assessment order the AO also considered the other issue is of no relevance as the fact remains that the penalty has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led in accurate particulars of income. 7.2. Addressing the next issue, it was his submission that the claim is based on the expenses in regard to the claim in 2008-09 wherein the assessee deferred the expenses @ rate of 1/5th for 5 years and the amount of Rs. 22,62,376/- consisted of Rs. 8,04,076/- for 2008-09 and the balance amount of 14,58,300/- pertaining to the earlier years. The expenditure herein was also genuine and not bogus and this too was not the case of filing any inaccurate income or withholding particulars of income. Reliance it was submitted placed upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro Products (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and the order of the Tribunal dated 16.04.2015 in ITA No.-5364/Del/2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " 5.2 Decision "I have considered the submission of the appellant and observation of the Assessing Officer. It is seen that in the assessment order passed Assessing Officer had disallowed excess interest payment of Rs. 1,30,302/- u/s 40A(2)(b) of the IT Act on the ground that this interest payment is excessive to the relatives of the appellant concerns. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has disallowed deferred revenue expenditure of Rs. 22,62,376/- on the ground that no details were sub mitted. On the basis of these disallowances penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the IT Act was levied by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 7,39,338/-. It is submitted by the appellant that expenditure of interest payment claimed by the appellant was not fictitious or bogus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
