TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act do not seem to have been existing in this case. In CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] held that when the assessee preferred a claim, it was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not, but merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty under Section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. It was further held that if the contention of the Revenue is accepted, then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and that is clearly not the intendment of the Legisla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted simultaneously and by order dated 21/3/2016 passed under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act, learned Assessing Officer levied a penalty of ₹ 33, 80, 701/-. 3. Aggrieved by the same, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and contended that though the Ld. CIT(A) in the quantum appeal observed that there is no concept of deferred Revenue expenditure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Taparia tools Ltd vs. JCIT held that in cases where the assessee himself wants to spread the expenditure over a period of ensuing years, it can be allowed only if the principle of matching concept is satisfied, which up to now has been restricted to the cases of debentures. Basing on such plea and also conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on the contract 50% of Revenue expenditure is claimed in respect of the block of initial 3 years and the remaining 50% for the subsequent black of 3 years and it is only a matter of the percentage of expenditure allowable but not any substantial difference is there. 5. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. There is no dispute in respect of facts. According to the assessee during the assessment year 2005-06, the assessee incurred a sum of ₹ 4, 43, 59, 569/-on furnishing, making workstations and providing certain infrastructure as per the specification given by one customer who had taken such facilities on hire for a period of 35 months; that the agreement was also had a clause as to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ock of 3 years and balance 50% in the following block of 3 years, which roughly works out to 16% per annum, and therefore the differences worked out only to 6%. 7. It is contended by the Ld. AR that though there is no concept of deferred Revenue expenditure under the Act, in Taparia Tools Ltd (supra) the Hon ble Apex Court observed that where the assessee wants to spread the expenditure over a period of ensuing years, it can be allowed only if the principle of matching concept is satisfied, which upon now has been restricted to the cases of debentures. Further according to the assessee they have obtained the opinion of M/s are some part Iyengar associates as to the treatment to be given to his expense. Further, the difference to be allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urate particulars on facts were provided in the computation. Law does not bar or prohibit a person from making a claim, when he knows the matter is going to be examined by the Assessing Officer. 10. In CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd[2010] 322 ITR 158 Hon ble Apex Courtheld that when the assessee preferred a claim, it was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not, but merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty under Section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. It was further held that if the contention of the Revenue is accepted, then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
