TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laring income of Rs. 3,406,422,522/-. The assessment u/s 143 (3) of the act was passed on 6 May 2009 determining total income at Rs. 1356,63,90,103/- making an addition of Rs. 1,159,967,581. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals who passed an order on 25th of March 2011 allowing the relief of addition of Rs. 8,51,22,52,583/-. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 1,647,716,066/- consisting of 12 different nature of disallowances. 03. As the learned assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) ( C ) on passing of order by the learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals), issued show cause notice dated 15th of March 2012 for imposing the penalty. 04. Before the learned assessing officer, assessee submitted that learned Commissioner of Income Tax A has deleted substantial addition and for balance addition/disallowance, appeal of assessee is pending before ITAT. Assessee also submitted that it is hopeful to get a substantial relief .It was also submitted that at the time of confirmation of the addition by the learned Commissioner of income tax A , no comments have been given against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esentative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer and submitted that additions/ disallowances have been made by the learned assessing officer and discussed the issue in detail that why the above addition has been made. These additions have also been confirmed by the learned CIT - A therefore there is no reason that the penalty shall not be levied on such additions and disallowances. 08. The learned authorised representative submitted that now the order of the coordinate bench has been received, on the appeal filed by the assessee and based on the above order, the learned assessing officer has also passed an order giving appeal effect to the above order on 30 December 2017, where the substantial part of the addition has been deleted by coordinate bench. Therefore, it was submitted that on the issues on which addition has been deleted the penalty couldn't be levied. He also referred to the order of the coordinate bench wherein various additions made have been deleted. 09. The learned authorised representative also referred to the notice dated 6th May 2009, issued by the learned assessing officer u/s 274 read with Section 271 of The Income Tax Act for initia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....304 Addition is deleted by the coordinate bench at page number 48 at para number 28 - 34, the matter is pending before the honourable Delhi High Court 3 Addition in respect of Magnolia and Summit projects 78,77,80,921 The coordinate bench has set aside the issue and directed the learned assessing officer to decide again after verification of the facts as per paragraph number 35 - 42 at page number 58 - 63 of the order, which is pending before the honourable Delhi High Court. Subsequently after verification of facts, the AO has passed an appeal effect order dated 30 December 2017 deleting the above addition. 4 Capitalization of interest expenditure as per AS -16 27,45,00,000 Addition deleted by the coordinate bench as per paragraph number 43 - 50 at page number 63 - 70 and the matter is pending before the honourable Delhi High Court 5 Brokerage paid for AMEX building 64,39,262 Appeal of the assessee is dismissed by the coordinate bench 6 Addition on account of enhancement of the revenue from constructed properties 42,86,06,986 Coordinate bench has set aside the issue and directed the AO to decide again after verification of facts as per paragraph number 58 - 62....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber 475/2019 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Sahara India Life Insurance Co Ltd dated 2 August 2019 in paragraph number 21, relying upon the decision of the honourable Karnataka High Court in 359 ITR 565 and 73 Taxman.com 241 has held that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law, if it did not specify which limb of Section 271 (1) (C ) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty order cannot be sustained. 15. Therefore, now only following additions/disallowances remain on which penalty levied survived, which has been deleted by the learned CIT - A. a. Disallowance of brokerage paid for Amex building of Rs. 6,439,262/- b. Withdrawal of deduction u/s 24 of 30% of standard deduction of Rs. 3,509,870/- c. disallowance of provisions for gratuity u/s 40 A (7) of Rs. 14,49,123/-. 16. Now we first come to issue with respect to the allowance of brokerage paid for AMEX building of Rs. 6,439,262/-. Assessee has submitted that it has two AMEX buildings one is Amex tower- I and another is AMEX tower II. Tower 1 was completed in earlier years h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been shown in schedule 19 Under the head commission and brokerage and there is no element of concealment b. since all the details are available on record there is no case of submission of inaccurate particulars of income either in the return of income or in the return submission filed in the course of assessment proceedings c. no details or particulars have been withheld by the appellant d. All the relevant facts have been brought to the notice of the assessing officer as well as special auditors by the assessee. The assessee filed return of income a company in the balance sheet and produced all the account books and the supporting vouchers along with relevant documents before the assessing officer the revenue could not discover any facts to hold that the appellant had suppressed anything, which they found out in the course of the assessment proceedings. The assessee has claimed deduction under the bona fide belief to its allowability and merely because in expenditure is been disallowed it does not result into the penalty for concealment of income automatically. 17. The learned departmental representative could not controvert the above finding of the learned Commissioner of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee, the remittance of the sum to the charitable trust is also demonstrated, therefore, the disallowance of the statutory deduction u/s 24 (a) is a simple disallowance and does not involve any element of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deleted. Though learned departmental representative could not point out the reason that mere disallowance of the statutory claim when the assessee has been taxed under the head income from house property will result into penalty u/s 271 (1) (C) of the act. However, for the reason that the penalty notice does not show any of the twin charges, on which the penalty has been levied by the learned assessing officer, as none of them has been struck off, on this ground, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner of is in deleting the penalty on above disallowance. 19. With respect to the disallowance of provisions for gratuity of Rs. 1,449,123/-, the facts noted that the learned assessing officer has made the disallowance of Rs. 4,981,625/- on account of disallowance on the basis of the report of special auditors whereas the learned Commissioner of income tax - A ....