9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one of the customers of the assessee. The assessee has created provision for retrofitment charges in anticipation of expenditure and upon the suit being withdrawn, the assessee had offered the amount in the immediately succeeding year i.e. assessment year 2008-09. All these facts would show that the observations of the Assessing Officer that the assessee concealed the fact is not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee - Income Tax Appeal No. 25 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2018 - S.V. GANGAPURWALA A.M. DHAVALE, JJ Mr. Alok Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel for appellant Mr. Nishant Thakkar Senior Counsel i/b Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate for respondent PER COURT 1. The present appeal pertains to assessment year 2007-08. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor has not made disclosure in respect of the provision of retrofit expenses in the tax audit report, however, the same is disclosed in statutory audit report. This shows that the assessee did not disclose the material fact truly and fully and it was left to the Assessing Officer to deduce this during the scrutiny proceedings. In view of this, the Assessing Officer was fully justified in imposing penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act. The learned Counsel further submits that the provision of retrofit expenses of ₹ 2.40 Crores claimed by the assessee was without any legal basis. It was disallowable, both in accounts and in law. The assessee has furnished the incorrect particulars of income. Learned Counsel further submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Senior Counsel, the assessee had mentioned about retrofitment expenses in profit and loss account and provision for retrofitment expenses under the head 'current liabilities' in the balance sheet. This would show that the assessee had not conceded the particulars of income. 5. According to learned Senior Counsel, the amount, which was to be received, a dispute was raised by the other party and a suit was filed. As such, the same could not have been shown as an income. After the suit was withdrawn, the amount was reversed and was shown in the next assessment year. This would also show the bona fides of the assessee. 6. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, we have gone through the judgment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
