2013 (11) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,17,000 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions amounting to Rs. 5,04,326. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has, by claiming business expenditure of Rs. 4,78,260 under the head 'staff and labour training expenses' incurred on the sponsorship of advance education at the U. S. A. for the son of the managing director, who is not a member of staff. The expenditure was couched as 'staff and labour training expenses' and thus furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat expenditure was essentially personal in nature. He submitted that there is no resolution of the assessee-company that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of business. He relied upon the decision of the hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Zoom Communication P. Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi). On the contrary, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that neither it is a case of concealment of income nor furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He submitted that the expenditure was duly reflected into the books of account. He submitted that the expenditure was essentially for business purpose as the assessee-company entered into an agreement with the son of the managing director. He drew our attention to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssee-company and could not give any detail of any of the resolution passed in favour of the person who entered into an agreement with Shri Siddharth Jain, son of the managing director of the assessee-company. Further, the argument as advanced by learned counsel for the assessee that the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty for both concealment of the materials particulars and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and also placed reliance on the decision of the hon'ble co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of Mukeshchandra A. Lakdawala [2010] 4 ITR (Trib) 307 (Ahd) we find that this ground was not raised before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and these decisions were not cited before the learned Commissioner of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X