TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1018
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the assessee based on the results of the quantum appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT (A). 02. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that penalty was levied by the AO on prior period expenditure of Rs. 1,25,54,985/- disallowed during the assessment, merger expense claim of Rs. 5,14,240/- and claim of advance / bad debt write off of Rs. 28,22,667/-. Ld. AR submitted that out of the above amounts, prior period expenditure originally claimed consisted of three items listed as under : (i) Advance to M/s. Balbir Distilleries Rs.37,06,054/- (ii) Various payments made in earlier years and shown as advances in the assessee's books Rs.1,41,05,273/- (iii) Prior period expenses Rs.1,49,658/- &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a reason that assessee could produce details of Rs. 20.73 lakhs. Disallowance to the extent of Rs. 4,96,780/- was sustained by the Tribunal only for a reason that assessee could not produce documentary proof for justifying its claim. But this, according to him, would not mean that the claim made was unlawful or with any malafide intention. 05. Coming to the next item of penalty which was on the advance to Balbir Distilleries of Rs. 37,06,054/- written off by the assessee, Ld. AR submitted that out of the said amount the CIT (A) had deleted the disallowance of Rs. 33,30,000/- in quantum appeal and only Rs. 3,76,054/- was sustained. Ld. AR pointed out that in further appeal of the assessee mentioned supra, this Tribunal had sustained the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09. Per contra Ld. DR submitted that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars in so far as its claim for merger expenses of Rs. 5,14,240/- was concerned. Assessee had shown merger expenses other than the above sum of Rs. 5,14,240/- separately and added back in its computation. However, the sum of Rs. 5,14,240/- which was also merger related expenditure was included under other heads. Thereby, as per the Ld. DR, assessee had knowingly tried to make a claim which it was not eligible for. But for the careful vouching one by the AO, this would not have come to light. In so far the issue of obsolete stock was concerned, Ld. DR submitted that assessee had not given the full list of obsolete stock with values, but had given only evidence for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levy of penalty, deleted the penalty levied of Rs. 1,49,658/- made for expenses relating to earlier years. What is left out of the above amounts is Rs. 4,96,780/- being obsolete stock written off and Rs. 37,06,054/- being advance to Balbir Distilleries. 12. In so far as obsolete stock is concerned, addition was sustained for a reason that assessee could furnish details for Rs. 20.73 lakhs against the claim of Rs. 25,69,780/-. Tribunal has at para 5.4.11 of its order has clearly mentioned this. Tribunal has also mentioned that what assessee has produced was a list of small items. Non-production of supporting records to show value of obsolete stock could, in our opinion, be a reason for disallowance. However, we cannot say that such a clai....