M/s. Complete Surveying Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6163/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7203 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S R MEHRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-II : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6163/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 COMPLETE SURVEYING TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., D-1007, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAACC4277E VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.R. MEHRA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK GARG, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.06.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 27.08.2014 CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF ITA NO.6163/DEL/2014 2 RS.1,16,000/- IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT, IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR A SUM OF RS.3,75,395/- WITH THE NARRA TION PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE FOR THIS AMOUNT AND, THEREAFTER, IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C), WHICH CAME TO BE APP ROVED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY BEDROCK FOR THE IMPOS ITION OF PENALTY IS DISALLOWANCE OF `PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AMOUNTING T O RS.3,75,395/-. DETAIL OF SUCH EXPENSES HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD, WHICH SHOWS THAT THESE ARE TELEPHONE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.22,854 /-, APART FROM OTHER MAJOR ITEM OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,47,677/-. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE EXP ENSES WERE INCURRED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, BUT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DE DUCTION FOR THE SAID AMOUNT IN ITS ACCOUNTS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AS THE BILLS WERE RAISED IN THE INSTANT YEAR. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY, THE LD. DR ADMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.6163/DEL/2014 3 DID NOT CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION FOR RS.3,75,395/- IN TH E PRECEDING YEAR AND THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED ONLY IN THE CURRENT YEAR WHICH ALSO STOOD DISALLOWED. I FAIL TO APPRECIATE THE VIEW POINT OF THE AUTHORITIES IN IMPOSING AND CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) O N THIS AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF `PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR RS. 3.75 LAC IN THIS YEAR AS WELL AS THE PRECEDING YEAR. BY NO STANDARD THIS DISALLOWANCE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, SO AS TO ATTRACT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. I, THEREFORE, ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF THE PENALTY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.06.20 16. SD/- [R.S. SYAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 21 ST JUNE, 2016. DK ITA NO.6163/DEL/2014 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.