9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee for the previous year under consideration was increased from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer observed further that in the Profit & Loss Account though there was negligible business activities, the assessee had debited expenses on account of interest on loans borrowed by it. To verify the verasity and correctness of expense claimed on account of above, the assessee was asked to file the details of fee paid to ROC for increase in authorized capital. The assessee was also asked to submit the details of interest paid and the purpose for which the loan was raised. The assessee submitted that the filing fee of Rs.7,51,850/- was paid by it on increased authorized share capital of the company. However, due to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of law. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income/concealed the true particulars of its income to the extent of Rs.9,65,056/-. Consequently, he levied a minimum penalty of Rs.3,24,840/- u/s 271(1)(c) on the said taxable income. The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the same. Against these actions of the authorities below the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. In support of the ground, the Ld. AR has reiterated the submission made a behalf of the assessee before the authorities below. He also referred page Nos. 1 to 9 of the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. These are copies of written submission dated 20.01.2012 filed before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessment order dated 11.11.2009 fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 (SC). (3) CIT vs Ramnik Lal D Mehta 136 ITR 729 (Orrs.) (4) CIT vs Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd, ITA No. 1582 of 2010, judgement dated 03.08.2011 (Delhi High Court). (5) Alankit Assignment Ltd. vs DCIT 3859/Del/2010 (AY-2006-07) order dated 07.01.2011. (6) Optimum Media Services Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, ITA No. 3325/Del/2011 (AY-2007-08) dated 18.11.2011. 4. Ld. DR, on the other hand, tried to justify the orders of the authorities below:- 5. Considering the above submissions and having gone thorough the orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon, we find that against the alleged concealment of its particulars of income or furnishing the inaccurate particulars thereof by it, the assessee has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Act and after raising the specific queries by the A.O with reference to those expenses claimed by the assessee in the Profit & Loss Account. Thus, we do not find substance in the contention of the assessee that the disclosure of additional income while revising the computation of income was voluntary. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee is having the support of expert opinion as return of income was filed with the assistance of its Chartered Accountants/Counsel." In this regard, we also find strength from the recent decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2010) (Delhi) followed by Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has been please to hold as und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
