TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble limbs of sec.271(l)(c) of the Act, ignoring that sec.292B would apply in the facts of the case, as assessee did not raise this technical ground before the A.O, during penalty proceedings showing that the assessee understood the purport and import of notice U/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the IT Act and therefore ratio of case law of Madras High Court, in the case of Sundram Finance Pvt Ltd (2018)(93 taxmann.com250) would apply in this case, wherein the SLP of the assessee has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court?. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting penalty levied on addition of Rs. 4,23,000/- on account of social forestry expenses without appreciating the fact that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular of income by claiming expenses incurred for earning exempt income against business income of the assessee ?. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting penalty levied on addition of Rs.2,52,99,629/- made on account of reduction on deduction claimed by the assessee U/s 80IA in respect of power generation unit without appreciating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Disallowance of claim of expenses against liability written back Rs. 87,498/- 3. Addition on account of adjustment u/s 145A Rs. 14,35,104/- 4. Addition on account of unexplained sundry creditors Rs. 9,85,463/- 5. Addition on account of excess process stock Rs. 9,72,890/- 6. Disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act Rs. 14,57,500/- 7. Disallowance on account of bad debts Rs. 27,49,340/- 8. Disallowance of expense claimed in company's P&L account in respect to on power generation unit TG- 3, situated at the central pulp Mills. Rs. 2,42,18,776/- 9. On account of excess depreciation claimed (as per para 11) Rs. 6,75,646/- 10. On account of excess depreciation (as per para 12) Rs. 4,05,207/- 11. Disallowance on account of commission paid to directors Rs. 4,09,700/- 12. Disallowance on account of commission on sales Rs. 28,10,000/- 13. Disallowance on account of various expenses Rs. 1,54,58,700/- 14. Disallowance on account of staff welfare expenses Rs. 80,75,000/- 15. Disallowance of deferred tax credit as expenditure Rs. 1,22,18,632/- 16. Disallowance out of club ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions on each of the additions/disallowances, on which the penalty was levied by the Assessing officer. On the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act, it was contended by the assessee that the deduction has been claimed in respect of power undertaking installed at one of its manufacturing unit for which separate profit as required by law was computed which was duly certified by independent accountant in Form 10CCB during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied by determination of profit of that power undertaking and allocates expenses of non-exempt unit to the exempt unit. There was no concealment of any income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee held that the assessing officer has not found any specific instances of furnishing particulars or details of concealment. All the details were furnished, including accounts and the impugned additions are the result of change of method/ manner of allocation of expenses of different units. The cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such facts no penalty is leviable and deleted the penalty on this issue. 10. With regard to disallowance of social forestry expenses, it was contended by the assessee that on similar disallowance made in A.Y.2004-05, the Assessing Officer had levied penalty which was deleted by CIT(A) vide order dated 12.11.2009. By following the order for A.Y. 2004-05, the ld. CIT(A) had also deleted the penalty levied for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 23/05/2017. 11. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee on disallowance of social forestry expenses held that similar issue arose in AY 2011-12 (Appeal No. CAS-1/10544/2016-17) and the same was deleted vide order dated 23.05.2017. The ld CIT(A) extracted the relevant part of the order of his predecessor in para 6.4.4 and held that like earlier year , in this year all the particulars were disclosed/ filed before assessing officer. There is no finding of the assessing officer of furnishing any inaccurate particulars or concealment of details. The additions were made mainly on estimation basis, which was further reduced by ld CIT(A) and hence the same was due to difference of opinion and is covered by the decision of H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on'ble Courts i.e. decision in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (supra), Subash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110( Guj), Surat Fashion Ltd. ITA No. 3368/Ahd/2008 dated 27/05/2011, Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. in ITA No. 0852/Ahd/2015 dated 04/04/2018, Deshman Pharmaceuticals in ITA No. 138 & 189/Ahd/2017 dated 07/09/2018 had deleted the addition. Before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. AR made out a case that there can be no such disallowance for the reason that expenses were of personal nature as has been held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron &Engg. Co. Ltd. (2002) 172 CTR 339 (Guj). Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the penalty levied with regard to club expenses. Thus, the ld CIT(A) deleted the entire penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. Against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 17. We have heard the submissions of the learned commissioner of income tax-departmental representative (CIT-DR) for the revenue and the learned Senior Advocate Sh Saurabh Suparkar assisted by Ms Urvashi Sodhan Advocate. The ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to deviate from the findings of the ld. CIT(A), which we affirms the same. 20. We also observed that the penalty levied under Section 80IA of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing the fact that the Assessing officer has not found any specific instance of furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of details. All details were furnished, including audited accounts and impugned addition is a result of change in method/manner of allocation of expenses to the different units, which was a difference of opinion. The ld. CIT(A) by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (supra) and the decision in the case of Shri Rama Multi Tech 32 taxmann.com 127 & Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. 35 taxmann.com 313 had deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing officer. No new facts and circumstances has been brought on record by the ld. CIT-DR to controvert the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ited the amount to capital work in progress (WIP). Thereby reducing cost of the project. It was duly disclosed in notes to account forming part audited balance sheet. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315 and Hon'ble High Court in the case of NTPC Sail Power Company P. Ltd. V. CIT (210 Taxman 358) held that "interest earned on surplus funds which are inextricably linked to the setting up of the project is a capital receipt & not to be taxed as revenue receipts. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has also held that the accounting treatment given by assessee results only in delaying the tax effect, (in form of reduction in claim of depreciation as the project cost is reduced) so it is a dispute of year of taxation. It was further held that the accounting treatment was explained in notes to accounts forming part of balance sheet. The ld CIT(A) held that Assessing officer has not given finding of any instance of furnishing inaccurate particulars or of concealment of particulars of income. The impugned penalty levied on addition made due to difference in opinion cannot be sustained and the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the penalty. No new facts or law is brough....