TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1027
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al is directed against a judgment and order dated 11th January, 2008 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.368 (Kol) of 2006 and ITA No.661 (Kol) of 2006 both pertaining to the assessment year 2002- 03. The former appeal was an appeal of the assessee and the latter appeal was of the revenue. The appeal of the revenue was restricted to deletion of an ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urrent previous year. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the payment made by the assessee is towards the penalty and also the liability has been incurred in the period prior to the commencement of the current previous year. Hence, Rs. 5,38,07,429/- is being disallowed. As the assessee has already disallowed Rs. 4,01,04,000/- in this respect the net disallowance amount to Rs. 1,37,03,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn. The entire sum, i.e. Rs. 1,37,03,258/- was allowable as per Section 43B. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the C.I.T.(A) in deleting the addition made by the A.O. purely on presumption and without any positive evidence on record. The ground of the Revenue, therefore, fails." It is against this order of the learned Tribunal that the present appeal wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut of which a sum of Rs. 1,37,03,258/- was paid before filing return for the relevant assessment year. He claimed deduction to that extent only. Deduction was not claimed with respect to the balance sum of Rs. 4,01,04,000/-. The payment, according to the assessee, was on account of principal. Both the CIT(A) and the learned Tribunal were of the opinion that there was no material before the assessi....