TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2008-09 on 30.09.2008 admitting total loss of Rs. 92,25,188/- under normal provisions and Book Loss u/s. 115JB was admitted at Rs. 91,90,000/- The case was selected for scrutiny as per CASS and statutory notices were issued. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, on verification of the details filed, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee company has increased its Authorized Share Capital from 2 crores equity shares to 16 crores equity shares of Rs. 10 each. For increasing the Authorized Share Capital, the assesseecompany had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,29,48,645/- paid to the Registrar of Companies towards ROC fee. The expenses were incurred for enhancement of authorized capital of the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Moreover, the assessee's representative agreed to add the- same though, it is debatable issue the assesses AR agreed the same to add back. From the above facts, it is to be noticed that on the basis of material on. record as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the assessee company had consciously concealed the particulars of income (or) had furnished inaccurate particular of such income with respect to difference in the amount of income returned and assessed." 2.3 Rejecting the submissions of the assessee, the AO levied a penalty of Rs. 39,90,500/- u/s 271(1)(c) by holding that this is a fit case to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for failure to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and in facts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessee has failed to provide any explanation as required in Clause (A) to explanation 1 to section 271(1) at the time of assessment as to why the expenses having enduring benefit on the revenue generating capacity of a concern be treated as capital expenditure. 3. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the facts of the case in respect of CIT Vs Reliance Petro Products P Ltd are not applicable to the present case as the assessee has not made and claim of deduction. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have considered a fact that the assessee offered an explanation at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the time of filing of return of income. It is understood from the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue has been answered in favour of the assessee by the High Court of Madras, Karnataka AP & Kerala and some of the Hon'ble High Court are in favour of the revenue i.e. Allahabad, HP, Delhi, Kolkatta, Punjab, Gujarat & Rajasthan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has appreciated the difference of opinion among the different High Courts and followed the decision of the majority and held in favour of the revenue. Ld. AR submitted that in view of the conflicting decisions of the various High Courts, it cannot be said that the claim of the assessee is totally wrong which led to inaccurate claim. 8.1 Ld. AR als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ital expenditure even though it may incidentally help in the business of the company, and in the profit making. It means, the nature of this expenditure is clearly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court and hence there is no question of forming two opinions regarding the nature of such expenditure. In such cases, there cannot be any quarrel regarding the proposition of law for invoking provision of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by the AO. 10. We also cannot ignore the fact that presently there are 5% returns which are taken up for scrutiny by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for 'assessment' u/s 143(3) of the Act, whereas in the remaining cases the return of income declared by the assessees in their returns accepted u/s ....