Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The assessee has also raised followed grounds for our consideration:-

"1. Disallowance of filing fees paid to ROC -

RS.64,00,000 The Ld.CIT(A)-LTU has wrongly upheld that the filing fees paid to ROC amounting to Rs.64,00,000 is of the capital nature. This filing fees was paid to enhance financial business of IREDA and was fully allowable. Accordingly, the filing fees paid to ROC is required to be allowed as revenue expenditure.

10. On careful consideration of above submissions, we note that the AO has made addition on account of filing fees paid to ROC with following observations:-

"'1. Filing Fee paid to ROC The filing fee of Rs.64,00,000/- which was paid to the Registrar of Companies in connection with the expansion of the capital base of the assessee company from RS.300 Crores to Rs.400 Crores during the year under consideration and claimed in the profit and loss account under the head 'Administrative Expenses' (Schedule-'O'). The same is in the nature of capital expenditure and is therefore not allowable. Moreover, it clearly constitutes capital expenditure in view of the ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited vs. CIT 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India Limited vs. CIT 225 ITR 798. The assessee has not distinguished the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, but has attempted to make out a case that it was necessary for the business and therefore, the same should be ITA 1183/D/2010, 542/D/2013 1110/D/D/2010, 371/D/2013 allowed. It is to be seen that all the expenses whether capital or revenue can be termed as business expenditure. Just because expenditure is for the business it does not partake the character of revenue expenditure. In fact, nothing turns on it in law in deciding whether expenditure is of revenue nature or of capital nature.

"The ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the contention of ACIT in imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of I.T.Act, 1961 of Rs.23,52,000/- being 100% tax sought to be evade on ROC fees of Rs.64,00,000/- paid for increasing the authorized share capital.

In this regard it has been clarified that all the particulars of ROC fee was accurately furnished during the assessment proceedings as well as appeal proceedings."

The sole ground raised by the revenue in ITA 371/D/2013 reads as under:-

"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-LTU has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) in respect of disallowance of deduction of Rs. 85,75,103/- u/s 36 (1) (viia) (c) made by the assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT (A) in quantum appeals."

ITA 1183/D/2010, 542/D/2013 1110/D/D/2010, 371/D/2013

16. Apropos sole ground of the assessee, we have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the contention of ACIT in imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T.Act, 1961 of Rs.23,52,000/- being 100% tax sought to be evaded on ROC fees of Rs.64,00,000/- paid for increasing the authorized share capital from Rs. 300 crore to Rs. 400 corre. Ld. Counsel vehemently contended that the assessee company clarified before the revenue authorities that all the particulars of filing fees deposited with the ROC were accurately furnished during the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings and the same were also furnished during penalty and appeal proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be held that the assessee furnished wrong particulars of its income or has furnished inaccurate particulars to attract the penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act.