What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the late fee payment was not penal and therefore allowable as a deduction. However, the disallowance of prior period expenditure was upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence.

The assessee appealed against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12. The appeal concerned disallowances made by the AO regarding a late fee payment and prior period expenditure.

What were the issues?

Whether a late fee paid for filing documents is a deductible expenditure and whether prior period expenditure is allowable without supporting evidence.

Traxpo Enterprises Private Limited vs Tax Recovery Officer-4 | ITAT Kolkata 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Traxpo Enterprises Private Limited.............................................................................Appellant [PAN: AAACT 9277 H] Vs. Tax Recovery Officer-4, Kolkata.………….....................................…......…….............Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Deepak Jain, A/R, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Dhrubajyoti Ray, JCIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : November 07th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : November 27th, 2019 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 28.02.2019 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for AY 2011-12.

After hearing rival contentions, I hold as follows.

The disallowance of ₹30,000/- made by the AO cannot be sustained for the reason that, this was the payment of late fee for filing of documents with Register of Companies and hence not penal in nature. It is a payment of late fee. The payment in question is not penal in nature and hence allowable as a deduction. Thus I allow ground no. 2.

Ground no. 3 is on the disallowance of ₹4,49,515/- on the ground that the same is prior period expenditure. The assessee submits that the expenditure in question crystallized during the year and hence allowable during the year. The ld. DR points out that the assessee is not been able to furnish any evidences in support of his claim that there were certain disputes in the earlier years and that the same were resolved during this year and consequently the expenditure crystallized during the year. As the assessee

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Traxpo Enterprises Private Limited. could not produce evidences in support of the claim, I will find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus ground no. 3 of the assessee is dismissed. 5. Ground nos. 1 and 4 are general in nature. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Kolkata, the 27th November, 2019.

TRAXPO ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-4, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments