TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure claimed by the assessee. Share capital advance - assessee has not filed the names and addresses of the persons who paid the capital advance, therefore, the AO made addition - HELD THAT:- As rightly submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, there is no allegation that the share application money was emanated from the corpus of the assessee. The assessee has filed the names and addresses of the share applicants. Therefore, it was for the Assessing Officer to examine further. Merely because the share applicants are from Andhra Pradesh, that cannot be a reason to disallow the claim of the assessee. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. Reopening of assessment u/s. 147 - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the assessee has not filed the return of income in the regular course. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s. 148 on 8.2.2010. Subsequently a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was also issued. Consequent to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 148 and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has filed the return of income on 7.12.2010 disclosin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resentative submitted that the assessee-company is engaged itself in the business of development of software. During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed expenses of ₹ 7,40,55,450/-. The assessee has not produced the books of account before the Assessing Officer. In the absence of any material, the Assessing Officer found that the expenditure claimed by the assessee to the extent of ₹ 7,40,55,450/- cannot be allowed. However, on appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) found that the assessee has shown sales of ₹ 1,14,91,494/- and further income of ₹ 9 lakhs. Therefore, it cannot be said that no expenditure was incurred to earn the abovesaid income. Referring to the remand report filed by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) came to the conclusion that at the best, the expenditure to the extent of ₹ 3,66,23,924/- can be disallowed and accordingly, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of ₹ 3.74 crores. The Revenue is challenging the relief granted by the CIT(A). However, the assessee has also filed cross objection challenging the order of the CIT(A) where the disallowance of ₹ 3,66,23,294/- was confirmed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred only for business purpose, therefore, the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) are not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. Referring to the customs duty penalty, the penalty paid by the assessee is only compensatory in nature, therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted the penalty. Referring to the fee paid to the ROC, the ld. Counsel submitted that these are revenue expenditure in the course of business for earning the profit, therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted the same. Referring to the discarded assets written off to the extent of ₹ 2,58,07,541/-, the ld. Counsel submitted that the value of the discarded assets were written off in the books of account, therefore, the written down value of the assets has to be allowed as deduction while computing the taxable income. Referring to the financial expenses of ₹ 72,31,718/-, the ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has furnished the entire details, therefore, the Assessing Officer is not justified in saying that the assessee has filed details only for payment of ₹ 38,53,335/-. According to the ld. Counsel, the assessee has produced evidence for the entire financial expenses of ₹ 72, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he extent of ₹ 3,66,23,924/-. In respect of other expenditure, he has not made any comments. Therefore, the presumption is that the Assessing Officer has nothing to comment on the remaining expenditure. In other words, the Assessing Officer has satisfied about the expenditure claimed by the assessee. 7. The next ground of appeal with regard to share capital advance of ₹ 6.17 crores. 8. Shri Jasdeep Singh, ld. DR submitted that the assessee has disclosed share capital advance to the extent of ₹ 6,17,81,000/-. However, the assessee has not filed the names and addresses of the persons who paid the capital advance, therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 6,17,81,000/-. On the basis of the details filed by the assessee before the CIT(A), a remand report was filed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has not filed any books of account or other material to support the claim of share capital advance. In the absence of any material, the Assessing Officer found in the remand report that the share capital advance cannot be taken as capital receipt. However, the CIT(A) found that the share capital advances were made through banking channels and share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion money actually emanated from the corpus of the assessee so as to treat the same as undisclosed income of the assessee. According to the ld. Counsel, the assessee has furnished all the details of the share applicants including their addresses, therefore, the burden of proof shifts on the shoulder of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is for the Assessing Officer to examine further and find out whether any money emanated from the corpus of the assessee as share application money. In the absence of any such investigation done by the Assessing Officer, according to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. 10. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. As rightly submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, there is no allegation that the share application money was emanated from the corpus of the assessee. The assessee has filed the names and addresses of the share applicants. Therefore, it was for the Assessing Officer to examine further. Merely because the share applicants are from Andhra Pradesh, that cannot be a reason to disallow the claim of the assessee. Therefore, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
