9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fault and this is not permissible under law - The assessee has not raised the ground before CIT(A) – The issue is remitted back to the files of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication - Decided in favour of Revenue. - - - - - Dated:- 23-11-2012 - Order The order of the Bench was delivered by Kul Bharat (Judicial Member).-These two appeals of the Revenue are directed against the common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Baroda ("CIT(A)" for short), dated December 18, 2009, pertaining for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. First we take up I. T. A. No. 1095/Ahd/2010 (for the assessment year 1997-98) The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business expenditure under the head "Staff and labour training expenses" incurred on the sponsorship of advance education of the son of the managing director for higher studies at abroad. He submitted that expenditure was claimed under staff and labour training expenses and thus furnished inaccurate particulars of income. He submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the business expenses as claimed was not a business expenses since the son of the managing director was not an employee of the assessee-company and there is nothing on record suggesting that the expenditure has been incurred for the purpose of business. He submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed inaccurate particulars of income deliberately. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee has been charged for both the default and this is not permissible under law. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of this Tribunal rendered in the case of Mukeshchandra A. Lakdawala v. ITO [2010] 4 ITR (Trib) 307 (Ahd) and the decision of the hon'ble Lucknow Bench rendered in the case of Deputy CIT v. B. J. D. Paper Products [2012] 17 Taxmann.com 11 (Lucknow). We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that on the point out query, learned counsel for the assessee could not furnish details when the son of the managing director of the assessee-company retuned from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
