TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e claims of Rs.14,24,000/- and of Rs.38,72,000/- with reference to which penalty of Rs. 17,82,634/- has been levied by the Assessing Officer are that the Appellant Company in Assessment Year 2004-05 pursuant to transfer of its real estate project to another company had claimed deduction for expenses incurred/to be incurred on real estate project on accrual basis. As a part of its project it had entered into an agreement with M/s Kailash Nath Associates and Ansal Properties Limited for joint development of the project. However, the same had been subsequently cancelled. There were issues pending for settlement between the company and the developers and a settlement had been arrived with M/s Ansal Properties dated 12.04.2006 and the company ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... crores in A. Y. 2004-05 on accrual basis estimating the expenditure to be incurred in subsequent years. The Assessing Officer in A. Y. 2004-05 had not allowed deduction for the sake holding it to be contingent liability and observing that deduction can be claimed by the Appellant in the year of actual incurring the expenditure. The Ld. CIT (A) allowed the appellant's claim on accrual basis, estimating the quantum at Rs.3.5 crores against claim of Rs. 4 crores. Since the issue was at appellate stage, the Appellant in the alternative had claimed deduction for actual expenses of Rs.38,72,000/- incurred during the year under references in view of observations of the Assessing Officer the order of the assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... years and the AOs in the earlier years, on similar facts levied no penalty. He further recorded that the assessee had made full disclosure in respect of its claims in the replies, returns filed by it. He deleted the penalty. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds. "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erroneously cancelled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) at Rs.17,82,634/- levied by the Assessing Officer. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing." 4. We have heard Shri Deepal Sehgal, Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ld.Counsel for the assessee. On a caref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basis. The Assessing Officer made the disallowance by holding as follows: "The assessee company following its stand has claimed interest of Rs.14.24 lacs (net of recovery) payable to builder for the year 31.3.2006 in the return. The Assessing Officer in the Assessment Year 2004-05 had disallowed the claim and had given the finding that such expenses will be allowable in the year of actual payment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also disallowed the claim of the assessee company and has given the finding that such interest will be allowable in the year of final settlement similarly, claim of the company was also disallowed in Assessment Year 2005-06, claim of the company is disallowed in this year also as per the stand taken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basis in the year 2004-05. The department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. On these facts we have the considered opinion that there is no concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars in this case. The assessee had made disclosures and had made conscious claims in view of the difference of opinion on the issue of year of allowability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs.Reliance Petro 322 ITR 158 held as follows "A glance at the provisions of s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word 'p....