2016 (12) TMI 359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ? (b) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the CIT(A) was competent to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) when they were not initiated by the Assessing Officer and there were no fresh facts found by the CIT(A)?". 2 This Reference relates to Assessment Year 1989-90. 3 At the very outset, Mr. Naniwadekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant-Assessee states that Question (b) is not being pressed. In that view, no occasion arises for us to answer the same. Thus, question is (b) returned unanswered. 4 Re Question (a): (a) Applicant-Assessee for the subject Assessment Year 1989-90, had in its Return of Income declared income at 'Nil'. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he imposition of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The Tribunal by its order dated 4th July, 1997 held that the Applicant-Assessee was guilty of filing incorrect particulars of income. This, particularly so, in view of the fact that the claim made in the earlier Assessment Year on the issue of deferred revenue expenditure had been disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The claim in the subject Assessment Year was not bona fide was further supported by the fact that the same was accepted by the Applicant-Assessee for the subject Assessment Year. In the above view, Tribunal upheld the imposition of the penalty imposed by the CIT(A). (d) We find that the claim for expenditure of deferred revenue expenditure was subject matter of con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Year would not by itself debar it from making a claim in a subsequent Assessment Year. There is no estoppel against law. The aforesaid fact coupled with the fact that the Assessing Officer while passing an Assessment Order, appears to have been satisfied with the claim that deferred revenue expenditure was a bonafide claim after necessary disclosure. This is self evident as he did not initiate any penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. (e) It is a settled position in law as held by the Apex Court in CIT v/s. Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 762 - where all details of expenses and income had been furnished in its return, mere disallowing a claim of expenditure would not by itself lead to the conclusion that there has been c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X