TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 748
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of Rs. 20,72,130/- imposed by the AO on account of addition made u/s 37(4) and 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act)? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that the addition on which penalty was imposed was duly confirmed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and accepted by the assessee company? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred to state that the penalty was time barred as the same was imposed after the final order of Hon'ble ITAT? 4. That the order of Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 5. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in directing to allow expenses amounting to Rs. 58,341/- on rent/repairs and depreciation of guest house u/s 30 to 46 of the Act? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing relief of custom duty paid included in closing stock as allowable u/s 43-B following the order of the Tribunal (S.B.)?" 2.1. Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 10/08/07 in ITA No. 40 of 1996 answered question No. 2 and 3 in negative in favour of revenue in view of the decision passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd vs. CIT and Anr., reported in (2005) 278 ITR 546. 2.2. Subsequent to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er there is force in the arguments of the Appellant that the aforesaid issue was not the subject matter in the consequential order dated 10.08.2013 passed by the ITAT in pursuance to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's order dated 10.08.2007 in ITR 40 of 1996 passed under section 256(2) of the Act. There are 4 questions referred by ITAT to Hon'ble Delhi High Court as stated above. Question no.1 and 4 were allowed in favour of the assessee and question no. 2 and 3 are allowed in favour of department. The AO should have imposed penalty on income arising out of these two questions no. 2 and 3. The amount of income involved in question no. 2 and 3 are Rs. 2,44,747/- and 59,341/- only but since the penalty imposed is delayed and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itions: * That the penalty proceedings initiated by Assessing Officer is time barred. He submitted that this Tribunal had decided appeal in ITA No.1134/del/98 vide order dated 30/06/94. The Subsequent order passed by this Tribunal on 10/08/13 was consequential to the order passed by Hon'ble High Court in ITA No. 40 of 1996. It has been submitted that, Ld.AO has passed penalty order beyond period of limitation within the purview of section 275 of the Act. * That the expenses decided against assessee by Hon'ble High Court was in respect of expenses relating to guesthouse maintained by assessee's and certain expenses relating to disallowance under section 37 (2A), being entertainment expenses. It is further submitted that Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... inaccurate particulars by assessee. Further from the submissions made by Ld.AR we observe that this Tribunal vide order dated 30/06/94 granted part relief in respect of additions, which have been reconsidered by Hon'ble High Court in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd vs.CIT and Ors. (supra). 3.1. At this juncture we refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT versus Reliance Petro Products Private Limited reported in 322 ITR 158, wherein Hon'ble Court held as under: "In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrec....