TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er observed that assessee has incurred expenditure related to project report (market survey and legal charges for drafting agreement) amounting to Rs. 86,82,514/-. Out of this it claimed 1/5th of Rs. 17,36,503/- u/s. 35D of the I.T. Act. Since the amount was incurred after commencement of assessee's business and no new industrial undertaking had been set up or expanded, assessing officer opined that the same should have been disallowed and thus prima-facie the amount to this extent has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer proceeded to disallow a sum of Rs. 17.37 lacs claimed by the assessee. On this addition, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) was also initiated. In the penalty proceedings, it was found by the Assessing Officer that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee would not be aware of the above settled legal position. Thus, assessee has made a wrong and bogus claim. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) further placed reliance inter-alia the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 and other decision in the case of C.I.T. vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 0044. 5. Against the above order the Assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. We find that in this case the assessee has incurred total sum of Rs. 86,82,514/- for expenses on account of payment of consultants for preparation of project report related to private equity placement an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T. and Anr. 348 ITR 306 (SC). In this case it was held, allowing the appeal, that the facts of the case were peculiar and somewhat unique. Notwithstanding that the assessee was a reputed firm and had great expertise available with it, it was possible that even the assessee could make "silly" mistake. The fact that the tax audit report was filed along with the return and that it unequivocally stated that the provision for payment was not allowable under section 40A(7) of the Act indicated that the assessee made a computation error in its return of income. The contents of the tax audit report suggested that there was no question of the assessee concealing its income or of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer was warranted in the circumstances. Ld. counsel also relied upon the decision reported as CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (supra). Ld. counsel for the assessee contended that it is evident that the CIT(Appeals) has partially accepted the assessee's claims to the extent that the depreciation was granted in respect of the Bangalore property. Ld. counsel stressed upon the fact that the Khan Market property had been let out only from August, 1996 and under the circumstances there seems to have been a mechanical repetition of the claim in the return filed. So far as the question of furnishing inaccurate particulars with regard to the provision of taxation is concerned, ld. counsel submitted that it was inadvertent and even the record s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in this case. 6.5 We further place reliance from the Apex Court decision rendered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26 wherein it was held that "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perfo....