TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. In this appeal, the only issue raised by the assessee is against the action of the CIT(A) in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 1,19,31,643/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed by the Assessing Officer. 3. In brief, the relevant facts are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is, inter-alia, engaged in the business of construction and development of township and other properties. In the return of income filed for Assessment Year under consideration, income was computed from such business by following the 'project completion' method of accounting, as in the earlier years. In an assessment finalized u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 24.12.2009, the Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ative explained that as per the Revenue such expenditure, though relatable to business, were not to be allowed in the year of their incurrence but in the year of the sale of flats, in connection with which such expenditure has been incurred. The learned representative pointed out that the manner of claim made by the assessee in the return of income was consistent with the past and also accepted by the Revenue upto the Assessment Year 2005-06, and it was only in the preceding Assessment Year of 2006-07 that the Assessing Officer made a departure. As regards the status of the quantum assessment proceedings, the learned representative explained that since the expenditure was otherwise allowed to the assessee in subsequent years even applying t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Delhi). 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR has defended the action of the lower authorities by pointing out that the assessee had wrongfully claimed advertisement/sales promotion expenses of Rs. 3,54,47,542/- against the income of the current year whereas such expenditure did not pertain to such income. The ld. DR pointed out to the assessment order wherein it was noted that the claimed expenses were in relation to the upcoming projects, for which no income had been offered during the year under consideration, whereas the income offered during the year related to the flats sold in respect of which Occupation Certificates were obtained from the local municipal authorities. It was, therefore, contended that the claim of such expenses in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome final and, in any case, we are not concerned with the merits of the rival stands thereof. Presently, we are examining the fact-situation with the objective of determining as to whether the claim made in the return of income was bona fide or not. It emerges from record that such a dispute arose, for the first time, in Assessment Year 2006-07 which travelled to the Tribunal, which set-aside the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer, who ultimately upheld the disallowance. Be that as it may, it is quite evident that from Assessment Year 1990-91 the assessee has been claiming deduction for such expenses in the same way as it did in its return of income filed for Assessment Year 2007-08, and upto Assessment Year 2005-06 it stood a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... methodology devised by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Year 2006-07 for the first time only seeks to postpone the allowability of expenses but does not reflect any disagreement on the merit of the expenses claimed. Therefore, the moot question is as to under such circumstances is there any concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income within the meaning of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The answer, in our view, is clearly 'No'. In all the Assessment Years starting from Assessment Year 1990-91 and upto 2005-06 the claim for deduction of expenses has been allowed in the manner claimed by the assessee following the 'project completion' method of accounting. Therefore, if in a subsequent period....