M/S. COMPLETE SURVEYING TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6163/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 June 2016AY 2008-094 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that disallowing prior period expenses, where the assessee did not claim deduction in the preceding year and claimed it only in the current year, does not constitute concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,75,395/- as 'Prior period expenses'. The AO disallowed this amount and imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of prior period expenses, when claimed in the current year and not in the preceding year, can attract penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-II : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Mehra, CA
For Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.06.2016Pronounced: 21.06.2016

ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 27.08.2014 confirming the penalty of Rs.1,16,000/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in relation to the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee claimed deduction for a sum of Rs.3,75,395/- with the narration ‘Prior period expenses.’ The AO made disallowance for this amount and, thereafter, imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c), which came to be approved in the first appeal.

3.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The only bedrock for the imposition of penalty is disallowance of `Prior period expenses’ amounting to 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 expenses were incurred in the preceding year, but, the assessee claimed deduction 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 admitted that the assessee did not claim any deduction for Rs.3,75,395/- in the 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) on 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 of 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 21.06.2016.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →