TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account of suo motu offering of claim of expenses of Rs. 29,70,998/-. Besides this, the assesse has also challenged the imposition of penalty on the ground that notices issued u/s.274 r.w.s. 271 is bad in law as Assessing Officer has not specified the charges before initiation of penalty proceedings. 3. The facts in brief qua the issue of levy of penalty are that assessee had filed its return of income on 30.09.2014 declaring loss of Rs. 31,20,289/-. Thereafter, assessee's case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly, notices u/s.143(2) was issued on 28.08.2015. The selection of the case for scrutiny was taken on following points as incorporated in the paragraph 2 of the assessment order:- "1. Low income in comparison to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stence of the company; (b) Auditors Remuneration Rs. 47,191,/- being necessary for compliance to corporate laws: (c) Professional Charges Rs. 15,500/- being fee for secretarial services required by law; (d) Fees & Taxes Rs. 2,624/- excluding [Rs. 1,65,849/- being stamp Duty] & Rs. 3,000/- being additional fee already surrendered in Return; (e) Depreciation of Rs. 64,976/- on computers/printers etc. for maintaining the basic company." 5. The Assessing Officer accepted the said revised computation, however initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). In the penalty order, the Assessing Officer held that since assesse had no business during the year and no revenue was earned hence all the expenses offered by the assesse were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iming the deduction for those expenses which were not allowable. Ground No. 1, 2 & 3 of the appeal are dismissed for the reason that the Assessee did not file revised return of income within the statutory limit provided u/s 139 of the Act. The Assessee only furnished revised computation of income on the issue of scrutiny notice by the Assessing Officer. Hence the plea of the Assessee that it suo moto revised computation of income, is baseless. The Assessing Officer recorded his satisfaction in the Assessment Order before the issue of the notice u/s 274 of the IT Act. As provided in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya referred to in above, the Income Tax Act does not provide a particular format for issue of the notice. The only requirement is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts that no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) can be levied on suo motu offer of disallowance of revised computation. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR has relied upon the following decisions. "1.Pr. CIT-21 vs. Dr. Vandana Gupta (2018) 92 taxmann.com 229 (Delhi) in ITA No.219 of 2017 order dated 20.02.2018. 2. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Mad.) order dated 23.04.2018. 3. CIT vs. Smt. Meera Devi (2012) 253 CTR 559 (Delhi) 8. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the material placed on record, we find that assesse has filed its return of income u/s. 139(1) declaring loss of Rs. 31,20,289/- filed digitally on 30.09.2014. As stated above, the assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny on the points ....