Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

c) There is no falsity in the claims made by the company.

d) The basis for your pedecessor's non-acceptance of the company's position on each of the individual items of disallowances/additions is purely on the point of interpretation of law."

9. The A.O. after considering the assessee's explanation observed that in the quantum appeal, the assessee company did not press various grounds of appeal against the additions made by the A.O. except the Membership Card issue purely because in view of the provisions of section 79 of the Act i.e. the company could not have benefitted from the carry forward of business loss in respect of the assessment year in question. According to the A.O., the said submission of the appellant will not have any effect on the leviability of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in this case. The A.O. after relying on various decisions including the decision in Union of India and Ors Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors (2008) 14 DTR (SC) 144; (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) held that the assessee company has filed inaccurate particulars of its income to evade legitimate taxes and also concealed the true particulars of its income and accordingly he imposed penalty of Rs.80,48,827 vide order Dt.30.3.2009 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

(ii) disallowance of legal and professional fees and other disallowances, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income. He further submits that despite of the fact that in the immediately preceding year similar disallowances were made and upheld in the appeal the assessee for the year under consideration has again made the similar claim, knowing fully that the similar claims would not be allowed in the assessment proceedings, therefore, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and liable to penalty. He further submits that merely because the assessee did not press before the ld. CIT(A) the disallowance made in the assessment order does not mean that the assessee has not concealed the particulars of income. The reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors (supra). He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) be reversed and that of A.O. be restored.

14. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee while relying on the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty further submits that the assessee has disclosed all material facts along with the tax audit report in the return of income filed by the assessee. He further submits that in the computation of income filed along with the return of income, the assessee has also mentioned notes forming integral part of computation of total income on each of the above disallowances in support of its claim, a copy of which is appearing at pages 1 to 20 of the assessee's paper book. He further submits that in respect of disallowance out of legal and professional expenses, apart from above evidence, even the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has not made any adjustment. He further submits that the disallowance made by the A.O. is purely based on difference of view/opinion on the part of the A.O. It has been held in a series of cases that penalty is not leviable where the assessment is completed on the basis of difference of views in the matter. He further submits that the return for the year under consideration was filed on 28.11.2003 whereas assessment for the A.Y. 2002-03 was completed much later. He further submits that the appeal for the year under consideration in which the assessee has not pressed the above disallowances in view of section 79 of the Act because the company could not have benefitted from the carry forward of any business loss in respect of the Assessment Year in question, was decided much after the assessments completed for both the assessment years i.e. 2002-03 and 2003-04. Therefore, the submission of the ld. D.R. that the assessee after knowing the fact that in the A.Y. 2002-03 similar disallowances were made and despite of the same the assessee has made similar claim in the year under consideration is devoid of any merit. He further submits that it is not the case of the revenue that the assessee has not disclosed all its particulars of income or has not supported its claim without any reasonable explanation, therefore, merely because in the assessment the disallowances were made does not mean that the assessee has concealed its particulars of income. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed strong reliance on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein their Lordships after considering the decision in Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors (supra) has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilip N Shroff Vs. Joint CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) and Sree Krishna Electricals Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 23 VST 249 (SC) and has held that merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable by the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions :