2013 (3) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal in the case of Bansal Parivahan (India) P. Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 9 ITR (Trib) 565 (Mumbai) ; [2011] 43 SOT 619 (Mumbai) ?" 2. The assessment year in question is 2006-07. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on December 8, 2008, for the assessment year 2006-07. In the course of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer added back an amount of Rs. 1,05,50,000 to the income of the assessee on the ground that though the assessee had deducted tax in the amount of Rs.2,11,000 that had not been deposited by the due date. The Assessing Officer noted that the amount had actually been deposited on June 30, 2006, and on July 7, 2006. The Assessing Officer relied on the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) in holding that inasmuch a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubsequent year through filing of revised return. This clearly establishes that the appellant has no intention of evading the tax by making the wrongful claim of expenditure. Concealment penalty in respect of this income can, therefore, not be sustained." 3.When the matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal, the Departmental representative submitted that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty on account of a disallowance of Rs. 1.05 crores may be correct in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bansal Parivahan (India) P. Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 9 ITR (Trib) 565. The Tribunal accordingly sustained the deletion of the penalty levied on the ground that it was covered by its own decision in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  (ii) section 40(a)(ia) brings about a deeming fiction. The effect of the fiction is a matter of timing. As the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) would show the date of the assessment order in the present case is December 8, 2008. The assessee filed a revised return only on February 25, 2009, for the assessment year 2007-08 claiming this pay-ment as an expense. In other words, though the assessee had made a claim in the assessment year 2006-07, it was only after the claim was not allowed by virtue of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) that a claim of expense was made in the subsequent year by filing a revised return and which claim came to be allowed. Hence, there can be no allegation of concealment on the par....