2016 (9) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on Amount (Rs.) 1 Disallowance out of Misc. Expenses 39000.00 2 Disallowance out of Maintenance Expenses 12410.00 3 Business advance forfeited, disallowed. 415000.00   Total 466410.00   3. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 5,11,410/- in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was made on account of late deposit of TDS on commission amounting to Rs. 45,000/-, disallowance of business loss claimed for forfeiture of business amounting to Rs. 4,15,000/-, disallowance of miscellaneous expenses amounting to Rs. 39,000/- and disallowance of maintenance expenses paid in cash amounting to Rs. 12,410/-. The assessee company did not prefer any appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Act and show cause notices are defective/invalid in law and are not competent for enabling the Assessing Officer to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for not specifying the exact reason for which penalty is imposed. Thus no penalty can be levied and the penalty order is liable to be quashed. The Ld. AR relied upon the following authorities: i. CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565 (KAR.) etc. as noted by Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in Fortune Polymers Industries (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 1036 / D / 2013) (Order dtd. 16.01.2015, On Pg. 10, Para - 8.11. (p) (q) (r) (s). ii. SANGHAVI SAVLA COMMODITIES BROKERS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT (ITA NO. 1746/MUM/2011) Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT Order Dtd. 22.12.2015. (PGS. 25 - 32 of compilation) (R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted advances. All facts stands disclosed. No inaccurate particulars of income furnished. It is a case of simple disallowance of expenses under the head in which most of similar expenses have been allowed during the year as well as in earlier years (earlier year Rs. 2.80 crores). The Ld. AR relied on the following authorities: i. CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. 322ITR 158 (SC) held that "making incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of "Particulars" ii. CIT Vs. KEVIN PROCESS TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. 40 TAXMANN.COM 249 (GUI.) (ITA NO. 537/2013, ORDER DTD. 01.07.2013) held that in absence of any finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, mere rejection of assessee's claims under sections 36....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncealment of income. Thus, it is a case of disallowance of expenses incurred bonafide. Such disallowance is not in the nature of concealment. The Ld. AR relied on the following authorities: i. CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) wherein it is held that no information given in return found to be incorrect and making incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of particulars. ii. CIT VS. DABWALI TRANSPORT CO. (SUPRA) held that the mere fact that the assessee could not furnish evidence in support of expenses claimed was not by itself enough to hold that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 8. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The Ld. DR could not distinguis....