TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment was framed under Section 143(3) vide order dated 16.12.2008 wherein the disallowances namely disallowance on account of loss on assets written off Rs. 4,37,708/- and disallowance on account of software expenses of Rs. 67,200/- was made. The disallowances made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by CIT(A) in the exparte order dated 26.10.2009. On the aforesaid disallowances made. Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.03.2011 levied penalty under Section 271(1)(C) as he was of the view that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and did not appear before CIT(A) during appellate proceedings. He was thus of the view that the expenditure claimed by the Assessee was not allowable as per law. The Assessing Officer rely....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een debited to P & L Account. In the case of (ii) above, capital expenditure has been claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, both these are not normal expenses being debited to P & L Account. Therefore, the issue is relating to submission of inaccurate particulars of income for which no cogent explanation could be submitted by the appellant. As proved by AO, it was not a bonafide claim. Mere offering explanation, is not sufficient - Explanation to be substantiated by cogent and reliable evidence, held in CIT Vs. Lalchand Tirath Ram (P&H) 225 1TR 675. The appellant's submission that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharamendra Textile Processors [306 ITR 277] has been overruled by the Supreme Court itself in case of Rajas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....came up for consideration in that decision....." Hence this judgment is not helping the appellant as one is devoid of taking advantage of any judgment by picking up a few words or lines from such judgment leaving the essence and substance which may be different. There are clear cut findings given by the AO for the issue involved as stipulated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [322 ITR 158 (SC)]. Lack of findings by AO would have given shelter to the appellant of the ratio laid down in this judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The view of AO that the appellant has made conscious and deliberate claim which has no backing of either statute or of latest judgments appears to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome i.e. to Rs. 1,69,951/-. The appellant, I therefore, gets relief of Rs. 3,39,902/-. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of CIT(A) the assessee is now in appeal before us. 5. Before us the learned A. R. submitted that the assessee had disclosed loss on sale assets in schedule 10 to the profit and loss and a copy was also placed at page 17 of the paper book. The learned A.R. pointed out that the two losses were shown separately while finalizing the return of income, loss on sale of assets of Rs. 33,994/- was disallowed but through oversight the loss on sale of assets written off Rs. 4,37,708/- was not disallowed. It was a bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee. With respect to the software....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 271(l)(c) of the Act is leviable if the AO is satisfied in the course of any proceedings under the Act that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The necessary ingredients for attracting Explanation 1 to section 271(l)(c) are that : (i) the person fails to offer the explanation, or (ii) he offers the explanation which is found by the AO or the CIT(A) or the CIT to be false, or (iii) the person offers explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same have been disclosed by him. If the case of any assessee falls in any of these three categories, then according to the deemin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act. In the present case since all the necessary facts were furnished. 10. In the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (supra), the issue was that though the provision towards payment of gratuity was not allowable, the assessee claimed a deduction in the return of income and was also allowed in assessment framed u/s 143(3). Later on in the reassessment proceedings, the aforesaid provision was disallowed and added to the income. On this addition the AO levied penalty. In those circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court was satisfied that the Assessee had committed an inadvertent and bonafide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars and therefore upheld the order ....