TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and that too without appreciating fully and properly the facts of the case. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT. (A) erred in partly confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act although there has been neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. In the details furnished at page 1 & 2 of the paper book the additions which have been made in the assessment order and the position of the quantum are described in the following chart. "For the relevant A.Y 2006-07 the date of hearing for quantum addition made was 06/02/2014 and the order was pronounced on 28/02/2014. Following is the summary of ITAT orders passed relevant for penalty levied by the learned CIT(A): S.No. Pariculars of penalty levied Amount ITAT order on quantum Reference No. Remarks 1. Deferred Revenue disallowance 9,13,635 In favour of appellant ITAT order pg. No.4- 6 Para 17 to para 28 Penalty N.A 2. Depreciation on Goodwill 1,26,563 ITAT has directed the AO to allow depreciation on goodwill based on Supreme Court d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to these additions are considered to be allowed for statistical purposes. 3.3 Keeping in view the aforementioned chart, so far as it relates to levy of concealment , on the following addition penalty is deleted in view of deletion in the quantum proceedings by the aforementioned order of the Tribunal. (i) Deferred Revenue disallowance - Rs. 9,13,635/- (ii) Gratuity - Rs. 13,08,005/- (iii)Renovation/Civil expenses - Rs. 38,56,361/- 3.4 So far as it relates to the levy of concealment penalty with regard to ROC fees. ROC fees is not allowable as expenditure. The position of law in this regard is very clear. Ld. AR also did not make any submission. Thus, it was a clear cut disallowable amount, which has been claimed as revenue expenditure. So the levy of concealment penalty to this extent is confirmed. 3.5 Similar is the position with regard to trade mark and patent expenses of Rs. 11,235/-. On this issue also Ld. AR did not submit any arguments and levy of concealment penalty on this amount is also confirmed. 3.6 Now the issue remain only with respect to excess depreciation claimed in the return. It was submitted by Ld. AR that on Air Conditioners and Office Equip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss claim of depreciation of Rs. 3,45,661/-. The chart is reproduced as below: Particulars Total Dep. 25% claimed Dep. 15% correct Diff. Excess Air Conditioner 34,68,002 6,42,488 3,85,493 2,56,995 Office equipment 11,05,765 2,21,665 1,32,999 88,666 3,45,661 3.8.1 As it can be seen from the above observations of the AO, it is case of the assessee right from the beginning that such claim was inadvertently made. The fact regarding the assets were duly disclosed in the return and only rate of depreciation was wrongly claimed. The basis of claim made by the assessee is that it has been described under Companies Act. Keeping in view the smallness of the claim and disclosures of particulars of assets and rate of depreciation and also the returned income of Rs. 8.90 crores, we are of the opinion that this could be an inadvertent mistake for which the assessee should not be held liable for concealment penalty. We, therefore, delete the penalty. .9 In the result, this appeal is partly allowed in the manner aforesaid. ITA NO.2660/MUM/2013, A.Y.2007-08: Grounds of Appeal: 1. On the facts and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, therefore, case is decided on merit. 4.2 As it can be seen from the above observations of Ld. CIT(A) that despite filing of adjournment application he has proceeded to decide the impugned appeal. We are of the opinion that it will serve the interest of justice if the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. To ensure compliance before Ld. CIT(A), we have directed Ld. AR of the assessee to appear before Ld. CIT(A) on 17/04/2015 to which Ld. AR had agreed. Therefore, we restore this appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issue regarding levy or otherwise of the concealment penalty as per directions given above. Since we are restoring the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A), we do not express any opinion on the merits. 4.3 In the result, this appeal is treated to be allowed for statistical purposes. ITA NO.2659/MUM/2013,A.Y.2009-10:. Grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in disposing of the appeal and that too without fully and properly considering the written sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irst day and the last day of the previous year. iii. 0.5% of 254145342 12,70,726/- 12,70,726/- 4 Total disallowance 12,80,130/- 12,80,130/- Thus total disallowance as per section 14A r.w.Rule 8D works out to Rs. 12,80,130/- (Disallowance : Rs. 12,80,130/-)" 5.2 So far as it relates to addition made on account of interest of Rs. 9403/- stated at Sl.No.2 in the aforementioned table, it is the submission of Ld. AR that no disallowance was called for as the assessee's own funds were much more than the investment made in the shares and securities, out of which the assessee has earned tax free dividend. To substantiate such contention, Ld. AR referred to the balance sheet, copy of which is placed at page 48 of the paper book. According to the said balance sheet share capital of the assessee including reserves and surplus is a total sum of Rs. 72,84,85,240/- as against investment of Rs. 41,61,63,310/-. Relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom) it was pleaded that no addition could be made on account of interest. 5.3 So far as it relates to other part of the disallowance, which is mentioned at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account, employee remuneration and benefits are described in Schedule-N and which are a sum of Rs. 49,76,56,158/- and total expenditure incurred in respect of directors remuneration out of the above mentioned total amount is a sum of Rs. 95,95,926/-. The administrative and other expenses is as per Schedule "O", copy of which is placed at page 55 of the paper book. Such expenses are amounting to Rs. 8,29,23,912/-. Thus, about 9.25 crores expenditure relates to director remuneration and administrative and other expenses. The investment of the assessee, as pointed out earlier in the shares and securities out of which dividend of Rs. 2.93 crores has been earned is a sum of Rs. 41.61 crores. The details of investment is also found placed in Schedule "E". Substantial investments have been made during the year under consideration except investment of Rs. 5.00 crores in Templeton Fixed Horizon Fund Series and investment in Equity share of shares of Just Dial Inc. (100% subsidiary) of Rs. 1.36 crores. Thus, in the year under consideration the assessee has made substantial investment and for making such investment decision have to be taken and it cannot be said that assessee did not incurre....