TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1746
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) in the case of M/s. Hindustan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.vide order dated 1.4.2004 and was responsible for developing the Prabhadevi Property of M/s. Hindustan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the only income declared by the assessee was interest on loans of ₹ 9,687/- and miscellaneous income of ₹ 75/-. However, the assessee had claimed the following expenses amounting to ₹ 33,23,196/-: Rs. Printing & Stationery 41,185 Profession Tax 1,700 Filing Fees 2,900 Audit Fees 5,510 Certification charges - Preliminary Expenses written off 1,469 Electricity charges 2,103 Water charges 4,920 Rates & Taxes 2,84,197 Post & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have been capitalized and taken to the work in progress. The assessee had accepted the addition as no appeal had been filed. CIT(A) also observed that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was only a civil liability as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textiles and Processors (306 ITR 277) and that willful concealment was not required to be proved by the revenue. It was accordingly held that penalty was leviable. However, CIT(A) reduced the penalty to 100% of tax sought to be evaded being the minimum penalty. Aggrieved by the said decision the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 5. Before us the Learned AR for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities that the assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder section 271(1)(c). Reliance was placed on the decision of the tribunal in case of Orion Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (87 TTJ 246) and the decision of Special Bench of Ahmedabad tribunal in case of Gujarat Credit Corporation Ltd. (302 ITR (AT)250). It was accordingly urged that penalty should be deleted. The Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of CIT(A). It was submitted that disallowance made by the AO had been accepted by the assessee and no appeal had been filed and therefore addition made in the assessment attracted penalty under section 271(1)(c). 6. We have perused the records and considered the rival contentions carefully. The assessee is a developer who was executing a property development project and method of accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elief that such expenses were allowable from year to year basis. We also note that allovability of expenses such as interest etc on year to year basis or in the year of completion of project has been a debatable issue. There have been contrary decisions of the various benches of the tribunal. The special bench of the tribunal in case of Wall Street Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT (supra) had rendered decision only vide order dated 22.9.2005 in which it was held that the interest has to be allowed in the year of completion of the project. The said decision it has been pointed out was published in the ITD only in the year 2006. Moreover the decision of the special bench has been disputed before the High Court where the appeal is pending. Under....