9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue raised in this appeal is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs. 3,38,956/-. 3. In this case the AO observed that the examination of break up of rates and taxes reveal that ROC fees of Rs. 10,07,000/- was debited under the head. This fee was paid for increase in authorised capital of the assessee from Rs. 5crores to Rs. 25 crores. The AO opined that this fee is a capital expenditure. Hence expenses was disallowed and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. The assessee pleaded that it was an inadvertent error and there was no deliberate attempt or concealment on the part of the assessee to evade taxation in this respect. However, the AO was not satisfied and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleaded that it was an inadvertent error and hence levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be resorted to. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assesee is a large company and declared a huge of amount of income. He submitted that the assessee did not stand to make any material gain by deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars in this regard. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the AO. 5.1. Upon careful consideration we find that the assessee's plea that there was an inadvertent error deserves to be accepted. There was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee. The expenditure made was duly disclosed. Only the treatment thereof as capital or revenue was under dispute. Hence, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that since the ownership of the asset was not with the assessee company hence the expenditure involved was revenue in nature. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that the issue involved is covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the higher courts. In this regard we note the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Bombay Cycle & Motor Agency 118 ITR 42 (Bom) where the matter pertains to treatment of brokerage of stamp duty paid for acquisition of lease hold properties. The Hon'ble High Court held that the period of the lease was one of ten years, it does not cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the Revenue is not maintainable. The ld. DR could not controvert the submissions made by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. We find that it is a settled law that CBDT Circular are binding upon the revenue. Accordingly as this appeal has been filed in contravention of the Circular issued by the CBDT regarding the monetary limit for filing the appeal before ITAT we are inclined to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue on tax effect. Accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 13. In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. ITA No.713/Kol/2012 (Assessee's Appeal)(A.Yr.2008-09): 14. The issue raised in this appeal is that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 23,18,000/- made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
