9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,10,155 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. In appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the modification in the order concerning addition in two categories was made. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax held that the part of penalty was leviable. 5. Aggrieved thereby the assessee filed a second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. There was cross-appeal by the Revenue as well. 6. The Tribunal considered the matter threadbare in paragraph 6 of its order which reads thus : "We have considered the rival submissions as also the decisions mentioned above. By now it is well-settled that a mere disallowance of the claim or making of an addition in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly technical. The disallowance was confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The claim could not be said to be false. Moreover there was no such finding in the assessment proceedings. So far as the item of Rs. 5,34,967 out of salaries, wages and bonus is concerned, the assessee had given information vide letter dated October 17, 1982. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) had taken the view that the liability accrued in the assessment year 1979-80 and not in the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee had explained vide letter dated February 28, 1985, that in the amount was paid during the previous year in question in consequence of the decision of the Supreme Court. This was not followed on the ground that the assessee wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question was incurred on account of travelling, boarding and lodging of the representatives of various clients who visited the premises for inspection of the cables. This expenditure was treated as of the nature of entertainment and, therefore, disallowance was made under section 37(2A). Here also the claim could not be said to be other than bona fide or debatable. The next item of Rs. 18,592 was added on account of section 37(3A). The details were given by the assessee, vide letter dated October 17, 1982. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) treated it as a case of statutory disallowance. However, there is nothing on the record to show that the claim was false or not arguable. The next item of Rs. 83,900 related to duty dra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, is not sustainable on facts. This takes us to the last item, namely, Rs. 21,618 which represents the disallowance out of travelling expenses made under rule 6D. The assessee had given details, vide letter dated October 17, 1982, wherein the names of the employees and the amounts of expenditure incurred on each of them were detailed. Further details were filed by the assessee, vide letters dated February 15, 1983 and February 28, 1985. The disallowance was made on the basis of the view taken on rule 6D. After considering all the facts and the foregoing discussions, it could not be said that the explanations furnished by the assessee were false or that they were not bona fide or that complete facts relating to the computation of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
