M/S. ACQUIRE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. Kuldip Singh, JM Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acquire Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Known as M/s Galileo Ward No. 12(1), India Pvt. Ltd.) Ground Floor, New Delhi Central Wing, Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACG3351K CO No. 94/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Vs Acquire Services Pvt. Ltd., Ward No. 12(1), (Formerly Known as M/s Galileo New Delhi India Pvt. Ltd.) Ground Floor, Central Wing, Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACG3351K Assessee by : Sh. H. R. Rao & Sheshan Sharma, Advs. Revenue by : Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 11.04.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 11.04.2016 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM:

The appeal by the assessee and the Cross Objection by the department are directed against the order dated 31.12.2013 of the ld. CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi.

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C1T(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the penalty levied under section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in entirety. 1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in concluding that the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs.62,03,379/-.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in concluding that the AO was justified in levying penalty with reference to the expenditure of Rs. 36,65,077/- incurred towards supply of water and electricity at the premises let out by the appellant. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not admitting the additional evidence submitted by the appellant to support the argument that its voluntary offer for disallowance of this expenditure may not have been correct at all.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in concluding that the appellant had filed inaccurate particulars to the extent of Rs. 3 & CO 94/Del/2014 Acquire Services Pvt. Ltd. 25,38,302/- out of the total advances written off amounting to Rs. 37,93,002. 3.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that trade advances given to Travel Agents, which are recoverable from the payments to be made to them, was not for purposes of the appellant's business. 3.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the AO had recorded satisfaction in the assessment order about concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income only with reference to the electricity and water expenses, and hence levy of penalty with reference to other addition/disallowances in the assessment was not legally tenable.”

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c), imposed by the AO on the disallowance made u/s 14A by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D which implies concealment of income/furnishing of ‘inaccurate particulars’.