DCIT, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JESSOP & CO. LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 839/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2018AY 2004-20052 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the sum represented interest on contributions to EPF, Sales Tax, and Professional Tax, rather than a penalty, was not rebutted by the Revenue. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed an expenditure of ₹28,98,932/- claimed by the assessee, treating it as a penalty. The CIT(A) reversed this disallowance. The Revenue appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the expenditure disallowed by the AO, and subsequently deleted by the CIT(A), was a penalty or interest, and thus allowable as an expenditure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Godara

DCIT, Circle-1(1) M/s Jessop & Co. Ltd., बनाम P-7, Chowringhee 21 & 22, Jessore Road, / Square, Room No.20, V/s. Kolkata-28 7th Floor, Kolkata-69 [PAN No.AAACJ 6969 N] .. अपीलाथ� /Appellant ��यथ� /Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT-DR अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant None ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent 15-05-2018 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 24-05-2018 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2004-05 is directed against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’s order dated 06.04.2015, in appeal No.126/CIT(A)-5/Cir-1/06-07/14-15, reversing the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing adding assessee’s expenditures claim of ₹28,98,932/-in the nature of penalty, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We thus proceed ex parte against the assessee.

2.

Learned Departmental Representative appearing at Revenue’s behest reiterates its sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal that the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the impugned disallowance of ₹28,98,932/- as the same is in the nature of penalty not allowable as expenditure under the provision of the Act.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →