2019 (2) TMI 640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 25,83,572/- imposed by the AO? 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing." 2. Brief facts of case are as under: Assessee filed its return of income for relevant year on 30/09/09 declaring total income of Rs. 23,97,18,510/-. Ld. AO completed assessment under section 143(3) of I.T.Act, 1961 (the Act) on 17/12/11 at taxable income of Rs. 24,73,90,490/-. Ld. AO made following additions: i) excess claim of depreciation disallowed -Rs. 40, 79, 973/- ii) foreign exchange fluctuation capitalised- Rs. 34, 56, 005/- iii) foreign exchange loss disallowed- Rs. 65,000/- 2.1. Assessee accepted additions made by Ld.AO and did not pre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p it pending. Accordingly we are disposing of this appeal as under. 6. Ld.Sr.DR submitted that assessee has not furnished reason for claiming 100% on addition, for less than 180 days. She submitted that depreciation allowable on same is only 50%. She further submitted that foreign exchange fluctuation loss should have been capitalised, instead of treating same as revenue expenditure. She placed reliance upon order of Ld.AO. 7. We have perused submissions advanced by Ld.Sr.DR in light of records placed before us. 8. From submissions made by assessee before Ld.CIT(A), it is observed that, assessee was under bona fide belief that depreciation calculated by software was correct. Thus in our view assessee was in bona fide belief that it is el....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....standard 11 issued by the institute of Chartered Accountant. However, during the course of assessment, the appellant company agreed to the additions made on the aforesaid accounts and paid the due tax along with interest on the resultant income and did not prefer any appeal in order to avoid unnecessary litigation. Explanation to Section 271(1) raises a presumption of concealment, when a difference is noticed by the AO, between reported and assessed income. The burden is then on the assessee to show otherwise, by cogent and reliable evidence. When the initial onus placed by the explanation, has been discharged by him, the onus shifts on the Revenue to show that the amount in question constituted the income and not otherwise. In this case....