Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 221 - ITAT DELHI

2015 (9) TMI 221 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee has claimed expenses during the Assessment Year 2005- 06 on account of fee paid to ROC, depreciation, Umaid Bhawan Palace Project cost written off and other expenses in Assessment Year 2005-06, and claim of depreciation and other expenses in Assessment Year 2006-07, which have been disallowed by the A.O. being not sustainable - Held that:- Keeping in view the facts and circumstances explained it is of the considered view that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No.61& 62 /Del/2013 - Dated:- 26-8-2015 - SHRI N. K. SAINI AND SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri R. S. Singhvi, CA For The Respondent : Ms. Kesang Y. Sherpr, Sr. DR ORDER PER H. S. SIDHU, JM: The assessee by filling present appeals sought to set aside the common order dated 25.10.2012 passed by Ld. CIT(A) upholding penalty of ₹ 54,85,590/- and ₹ 56,60,190/- imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law in not holding that penalty of ₹ 54,85,590 imposed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. 1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law in not holding that the penalty order dated 14.03.2012 passed by assessing officer was barred by limitation prescribed under section 275 of the Act. 2. That on the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating that all material particulars were truly, fully and accurately furnished and disclosed by the appellant in the return of income and accompanying documents. 2.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the levy of penalty without appreciating that in none of the proceedings, any finding of particulars, having been concealed or inaccurately furnished, was returned or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

preciating that the disallowance of expenses which were admittedly revenue in nature had been made purely on the basis of difference of opinion between the appellant and the assessing officer as regards the question whether there was complete cessation/ discontinuance of business by the appellant or a mere temporary lull. 3.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the penalty levied by the assessing officer, without appreciating that the expe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d in relation to Umaid Bhawan Palace represented "project costs" and (b) at the time of incurring thereof, the assessee was not carrying on any business. 4. That without prejudice to above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law in hurriedly upholding the penalty order, without waiting for the decision of the quantum appeal pending before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of incom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

epreciation, disallowance of Umaid Bhawan Palace Project cost written off and disallowance of other expenses respectively by passing order and subsequently, assessed the income at ₹ 1,49,91,020/- in I.T.A.No. 61/Del/2013 and ₹ 9,63,961/- and ₹ 1,58,51,811/- on account of disallowance of claim of depreciation and other expenses respectively in I.T.A.No. 62/Del/2013. 3. Against the assessment order passed by the A.O., assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ontention of assessee, penalty @ 100% in both the years i. E. ₹ 54,85,590/- and ₹ 56,60,190/- were imposed. 5. The assessee again challenged the order passed by Ld. ACIT, Circle 4(1), New Delhi imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c), before Ld. CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal of assessee and the impugned order is now under challenge before ITAT. 6. The A.O. considered the same and rejected the contention raised by the assessee in reply dated 07.03.2012 and imposed penalty @ 100% in both .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly furnished and there is no case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income; that the amount of expenses claimed by the assessee were admittedly revenue in nature and the disallowance of expenses is based upon difference of opinion between the appellant assessee and the A.O. The Ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order has erred in law in upholding the penalty levied by A.O. without appreciating that the A.O. had made disallowance .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ors & Trading Co. (Del.) ii) CIT Vs Nayan Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 368 ITR 722 iii) CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (S. C.) iv) Karan Raghav Exports (P) Ltd Vs CIT 349 ITR 112 (Del.) v) New Holland Tractors (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (Del) vi) Carefour WC and C India P. Ltd. Vs DCIT 368 ITR 692. vii) CIT Vs Samsung India Electronics Ltd. 356 ITR 354 (Del.) 8. On the other hand, Ld . D. R. relied upon the order of A.O. in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and impugned order pas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

siness was yet to commence. Ld. D. R. further submitted that no interconnection, interdependence or interlacing between Umaid Bhawan Palace, Jodhpur, a new business and Lodhi Hotel business, which is evident from audit report filed with I. T. Return for Assessment Year 2004-05 has been established; that the assessee did not supply copy of agreement entered into between Umaid Bhawan Palace Project being a joint venture with Marudhar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. despite demand; that the assessee has not furni .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the assessee whereas the same is not admissible as per judgements cited as PSIDC Ltd. Vs CIT, 225 ITR 792 (S. C.) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs CIT 225 ITR 798 (S. C.); that since the assets in question have not been used for the purpose of business, the claim of the depreciation thereon amounting to ₹ 7,99,025/- are not allowable, hence added to the income of assessee; that the assessing authorities have disallowed the claim of project cost written off by the assessee for the Umaid Bh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

well as order of ITAT dated 21.07.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee has claimed expenses to the tune of ₹ 1,49,91,020/- during the Assessment Year 2005- 06 on account of fee paid to ROC, depreciation, Umaid Bhawan Palace Project cost written off and other expenses in Assessment Year 2005-06, and ₹ 1,68,15,772/- on account of claim of depreciation and other expenses in Assessment Year 2006-07, which have been disallowed by the A.O. being not sustainable. Ld. A.R. relied upon Hon ble Ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word particulars used in Section 271(12)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eturn must not be accurate, not exact or correct, not according to the truth or erroneous. Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return canto amount to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ilders and Developers dated 08.07.2014. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the penalty is not leviable because the matter is admitted in the Hon ble Delhi High Court and pending for adjudication and the issue is debatable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the order dated 08.07.2014 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs Nayan Builders and Developers, which reads as under: Having head Mr. Ahuja, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2009. In our view, there was no case made out for imposition of penalty and the same was rightly set side. The appeal raises no substantial question of law, it is dismissed. No costs. 11. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that against the order of ITAT, assessee has filed appeal before Hon ble Delhi High Court, which his pending for adjudication. He has also filed a copy of order dated 24.07.2014 of Hon ble High Court to support this contention: In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version