2025 (4) TMI 1941

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penalty by the Assessing Officer (AO)under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This appeal is recalled vide M.A. No. 119/Del/2019, vide order dated 07.06.2024. 2. The grounds of appeal raised read as under: " (i) "In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 6256808/- by accepting the plea of the assessee that the assessee had in original return of income and computation of income added back the sum of Rs. 18407792/- ignoring the facts of the case that the assessee itself admitted the default vide letter dated 08.12.2011 filed the revised computation of income. (ii) "The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... finding that the details submitted by the appellant were incorrect or false. A mere making of an incorrect claim would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. 5.4. The appellant had clearly not concealed or furnished inaccurate details in respect of Rs. 1,84,07,792/- which were prior period expenses. The details were all available on record." 5. The Ld. DR contented that these findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are contrary to that recorded by the AO. She drew our attention to the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act in the case of the assessee for the impugned year wherein she pointed out that while dealing with the issue of prior period expenses at para 7 of the order, the AO had categorically recorded the fact that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es while computing its income. Our attention was drawn to the Acknowledgement of the original ITR filed by the assessee alongwith the computation of Income placed at Paper Book page No.1 & 2 resp. and also the copy of Return of Income originally filed placed at P.B 3-33. 7. Drawing our attention to the computation of income at P.B 2, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee had disallowed prior period expenses while computing its income determining its Gross total income at Rs. 184,82,97,875/- and after claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act had computed total income of Rs. 99,50,04,669/-. He pointed out that the total tax determined as payable in the computation was Rs. 32,89,10,965/- . Next, he drew our attention to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... fact that the assessee had accounted for the prior period expenses while computing its income and had mentioned verifying the said fact from records before him. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has duly demonstrated the said fact from the copy of original return of income filed before us that the assessee had duly disclosed the prior period expenses in its return of income (P.B 10),had accounted for the same while computing its income originally (P.B 2) and had also paid taxes on the computed income after disallowing prior period expenses(P.B 1 & 2). 9. The Ld. DR's case rested on the finding of the AO that the assessee had disallowed the said expenses only vide a revised computation filed during assessment proceedings. However, he was ....