TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... planation disallows the expenditure incurred on the activities relating to CSR referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. The assessment year under appeal being the first year wherein this amendment had taken effect, the assessee ostensibly made a claim of CSR expenditure due to oversight. After having examined the facts and chronology of events, prima facie it appears to be a bonafide mistake. It is relevant to mention here that the assessee had made disclosure about the claim made in the computation of income including the expenditure claimed on CSR. Thus, the assessee has not suppressed the facts. The assessee in computation of income made a claim which was inadmissible and during assessment proceedings the assessee rectif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As per the provisions of the Act, the due date for filing of the appeal was 08th April, 2020, whereas, the appeal was filed on 08th June, 2020. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay was caused due to closure of office on account of Covid-19 pandemic. The Ld. AR placed reliance on The Taxation Other Laws (Relaxation of certain provisions) Ordinance, 2020 whereby the limitation for filing of the appeals was extended. We are satisfied that the delay, if any in filing of the appeal was not deliberate, but was for the reasons beyond the control of assessee. The appeal has been filed within the extended time granted by the Ordinance, aforesaid. Therefore, the appeal has been filed within the extended period of limitation, hence, no delay in fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 348 ITR 306 (SC) 2. CIT vs Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. - 252 ITR 92 (Bom) 3. CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC) 4. On the other hand, Shri Milind Chavan representing the department, vehemently defended the impugned order. The Ld. DR submitted that it is not a case of limited scrutiny. The expenditure in respect of CSR was claimed by the assessee in order to reduce tax incidence. The Ld. DR submitted that the case laws cited by the AR of assessee are distinguishable and referred to the decisions on which the CIT(A) has placed reliance to uphold levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. We ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er had made enquiries only on two issues i.e. (i) low income high loans/advances/investments, and (ii) investment in unlisted equities. Apparently, the mistake in claiming CSR expenditure was not pointed by the AO. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that merely because the assessee had claimed expenditure which was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue, that by itself, would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant extract of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case reads as under:- 9. We are not concerned in the present case with the mens rea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently; (ii) an item of expenditure may be falsely (or in an exaggerated amount) claimed, and both types attempt to reduce the taxable income and, therefore, both types amount to concealment of particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|