Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 338 - ITAT MUMBAIMaintainability in law of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Assessee complied with the show cause notices u/s.274 or not - Held that:- If the assessee had filed its’ explanation, it is being admittedly not considered by the AO, he ought to have called for a remand report from him after verifying/ascertaining the veracity of the assessee’s claim, toward which there is no finding - the same to be on facts the same as that assumed by the assessee at the assessment stage, which stands considered by the AO. Non-acceptance of assessee’s claim of write off – Held that:- The CIT(A)’s treatment of the assessee’s appeal on merits is again cryptic and inconsistent with the facts of the case, even as he delineates the issue arising for consideration correctly, i.e., as to whether the assessee could be considered as having concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income – He correctly framing the issue, does not explain if the conditions of Explanation 1, providing the circumstances under which the assessee would not be deemed to have concealed his income, and thus is to be read along with, stand satisfied or not. Concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars – Held that:- The assessee has clearly stated to have, as a part of its existing business, also tried to promote young talent in the field of sports, as a separate division, since FY 2000-01, incurring expenditure on salaries, rent, etc. since that year - assessee’s method of accounting, peculiar to its business, stands in fact accepted by the Revenue - there is no question of the assessee having failed to specify any event, which reason prevailed with the AO, so that a claim in its respect would arise only for the year in which the same stood incurred – assessee rightly contended that the fixed assets also includes fixture and fittings, claim qua which may be valid, being in respect of rented premises - the question of the assessee’s explanation being not found to be erroneous or false, in departure of the Revenue’s case, would arise only after the assessee furnishes one – thus, the matter is to be remitted back to the AO – Decided partly in favour of revenue.
|