9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wance out of motor car hire charges and interest expenses disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Since there is only change in figures in all the appeals and rest of the grounds are same, to be precise, we are narrating the facts of the appeal in ITA No. 594/Ahd./2002, for assessment year 1996-97. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, during the course of assessment proceedings, it is found that the assessee had given share application money of ₹ 42,90,000/- to its sister concern namely, Akshar Pvt. Ltd. Out of sale of share application money, ₹ 39,90,000/- was given by way of taking loan from the bank. The Assessing Officer sought explanation from the assessee to specify the source of funds, terms of share application money and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the fair market value, the assessee had made excess payment of ₹ 42,400/- u/s 40A(2). 5. The matter was carried in appeal before the CIT(A), who, with regard to interest expenses, deleted the disallowance. On further appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal, The Tribunal sustained the order of the Assessing Officer. As regards motorcar hire charges, the CIT(A) held that hire charges payable in respect of vehicles were to be determined with reference to particular rate per vehicle per month and the Assessing Officer was directed to recalculate the disallowance accordingly. As a result, the disallowances were got reduced and were confirmed to the extent of ₹ 14,000/-. In further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in shares of a group concern. The fact that CIT(A) 4 Aims Industries Ltd, and the ITAT have also differed on this issue clearly shows that more than one view was possible in the matter. The courts have consistently held that disallowance of a debatable or even misconceived claim may not lead to imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) provided there was no concealment or furnishing or inaccurate particulars of income. In the instant case, all the primacy facts have been disclosed. The controversy has arisen only as a result of different conclusions being drawn from the same set of facts. The difference of opinion was not confined only to the A.O and the assessee but also resulted a contrary views being taken by the Tribunal and the CIT(A). Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng similar set of facts. The difference of opinion also traveled to the High Court. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that this is not a case of levying penalty for concecealment. We, accordingly, uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. 10. As regards excess claim of expenditure, we find that the entire facts have been disclosed by the assessee and the disallowance based on estimated market rate of the hire charges which were determined by the CIT(A) @ ₹ 9,000/- per month for Maruti car and @ ₹ 6,000/- per month for Rata Estate respectively. These are again an estimated disallowances and there is no material on record to justify the unreasonableness and excessiveness of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
