9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer) levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Your appellant submits that the order u/s. 271(1)(c) is illegal, bad-in-law and the same ought to be cancelled. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 8,48,499 in respect of addition of Rs. 24,96,318 made to the total income on account of disallowance of Exhibitor Promotion expenses. The appellant submits that the penalty of Rs. 8,48,499 is wrongly levied and the same ought to be cancelled." 3. Assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 53,09,700/-. Assessment was made on a total income of Rs. 1,03,52,020/- vide order under section 143(3) dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of the said addition to the total income as discussed above. During the year under consideration the assessee has claimed to have incurred expenditure of Rs. 1,68,26,530/- on account of Exhibitor Promotion expenses. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has claimed expenditure relating to exhibitions held in China which is not related to the business operations of the assessee in India. Accordingly he disallowed Rs. 24,96,318/- on this account and levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 8,48,499/- for the same. During the relevant financial year certain Exhibitor Promotion expenses were incurred by Deutsche Messe AG (DMAG), the parent company of the assessee, for fairs organized in India and China. Fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Profit & Loss Account of the assessee. As per Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) an assessee is said to have concealed particulars of its income in respect of any expense claimed in return of income. In this regard the stand of the assessee has been that the assessee has claimed certain expenditure which could not be accepted by Assessing Officer. 6.1 The provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act together with Explanation-1 there under, no principles of menserea is required for levy of such civil penalty. Levying penalty may not be justified in cases of explanation given is found bonafide and all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by assessee. The disclosure should be ful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny to China and that way tired to explain that the expenses debited in the Profit & Loss Account were actually incurred and there was no concealment and assessee had not furnished any incorrect particulars of income. If that was so, then the assessee had ample opportunity to get those invoices from its counterpart and/or could have obtained copy thereof from the parent company itself and submitted to the Assessing Officer at least during the penalty proceedings. Unfortunately, no such evidence was filed neither before the Assessing Officer nor even before the CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings. In view of the above the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer wherein he has held that the assessee has concealed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
