9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed on the basis of consistent method followed by the appellant. The expenditure in question was revenu9e but same was deferred for future years to be claimed against the income of future years. The expenditure was to be amortized in 5 years period and 1/5th was too be claimed every year. The amount debited of ₹ 22, 62,376/- consisted of ₹ 8, 04,076/- for A.Y 2008-09 and the balance amount of ₹ 14,58,300/- was pertaining to earlier years. The expenditure was revenue in nature and same was not bogus or not genuine. Everything was disclosed in the return of income and there was concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was on the basis of difference of opinion. An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of excess interest paid. Apart from that he also made an addition by way of a disallowance of ₹ 22,62,376/- considering the expenses debited in the P L account in regard to which the addition was made for want of explanation filed. These additions were accepted by the assesses as no appeals were filed. As a result of the additions having been accepted the AO required the assessee to explain why penalty u/s 271(1)(C) should not be imposed. The explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer on account of the following reason. The reply filed by the assessee nowhere mentions why excess interest amounting to ₹ 1,30,302/- was paid or under what circumstances, the assessee had to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the order needs to be set aside and the penalty order be confirmed. 7. The Ld. AR on the other hand submitted that a perusal of the penalty order would show that penalty has been imposed only on account of disallowance of interest paid and disallowance of the expenditure claimed. The objection posed on the ground that in the assessment order the AO also considered the other issue is of no relevance as the fact remains that the penalty has been imposed by the AO only on these two issues thus it was argued that even if the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings on account of adjustments in the book profit but the fact remains that at the time of levying penalty he has imposed penalty only on the additions made as per the normal profits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 8,04,076/- for 2008-09 and the balance amount of 14,58,300/- pertaining to the earlier years. The expenditure herein was also genuine and not bogus and this too was not the case of filing any inaccurate income or withholding particulars of income. Reliance it was submitted placed upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro Products (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and the order of the Tribunal dated 16.04.2015 in ITA No.-5364/Del/2013 in ACIT vs Ortel Communication Ltd. (copy at pages 21 -24 of the Paper Book). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the assessment order it is seen that the Assessing Officer has recorded his satisfaction for initiating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ground that this interest payment is excessive to the relatives of the appellant concerns. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has disallowed deferred revenue expenditure of ₹ 22,62,376/- on the ground that no details were sub mitted. On the basis of these disallowances penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the IT Act was levied by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 7,39,338/-. It is submitted by the appellant that expenditure of interest payment claimed by the appellant was not fictitious or bogus. It was a genuine expenditure claimed by the appellant and same was paid to the person from who loans were taken. There was no concealment of facts or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant has disclosed all the facts of the interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
