TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 821
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3052/Del/2011) "1. The order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) is erroneous & contrary to facts & law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s271(1)(c) of the I.T Act, on account of addition of Rs. 17,42,063/- made by disallowing expenses incurred by reimbursement of communication fees paid to the directors of the assessee company. 3. Ld. CIT(A) ignored the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer and the fact that assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of its income by claiming non-allowable expenses on account of reimbursement of communication fees. 3. The grounds of appeal for assessee are as under: - (ITA NO. 1755/Del/2012) "1. That, on the facts and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re on the part of the appellant to offer any explanation or that the explanations offered were false or that the explanations given by the appellant were not bonafide, when admittedly full and true disclosure was made in the return of income and during the assessment proceedings by the appellant. 5. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by Ld. CIT (A) confirming the penalty on the ground that the disallowances/additions made by A.O in the assessment order were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and further confirmed by ITAT. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that a mere disallowance of claim does not automatically result in levy of penalty. 6. That the above grounds are without prejudice to and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he last quarter of F. Y 2002-03 relevant to A. Y 2003-04 was overstated by net amount of Rs. 137, 73,479/-. Accordingly in the books of accounts for A.Y 2004-05, the error was rectified by reducing the revenue in Profit and Loss account and correspondingly reducing the amount receivable in the balance sheet. Consequently, the return of income for A.Y 2003-04 was revised under 139(5) of the Act on 31 March 2005 reducing the income to Rs. 3,96,23,070 after correcting the above error as found out while auditing the accounts for A.Y 2004-05, since it pertained to A.Y 2003-04. 8. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act at income of Rs. 58, 584,342/- after making certain additions and disallowances. The CIT (A) disposed off the appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t return for A.Y 2004-05 has come to the knowledge that there was an error in net profit for the A.Y 2003-04 immediately, the assessee filed revised return for A.Y 2003-04 which was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The AR pointed out page 215 of the paper book wherein the revised return for A.Y 2003-04 was filed and in Schedule 9, there was a clear mention that there was some error for which the revised return has been filed. The AR also submitted that auditor himself has admitted that there was an error and no authority whatsoever has stated that the revised return were false. Therefore, there was a full disclosure on part of the assessee. The assessee relied on the judgment of Sherwani Hospitalities Ltd VS. CIT 2013-35 Taxman.com 271 De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act comes into play only in cases where in the approval sought by the company is not granted at the person who has received remuneration is liable to refund the amount. The obligation caste on the employee to refund the money and the prohibition imposed on the company not to the wave recovery. However, do not have the effect of rendering the initial payment illegal. Thus, the penalty on the sale cannot be levied by the Assessing Officer. 12. The Ld. DR relied upon the penalty order and CIT (A)'s order to that effect. 13. We have perused all the documents on record and heard both the sides. The CIT (A) while confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, has over looked the facts that the assessee has filed revised return when th....