Full Text
Translation output
t€
3#
%o 22.07.2()11
Present: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue
+ ITA No. 87a/zorr
The assessee had claimed certain expenses in income tax refurn filed by it for the assessment year zoo4-2oo1. These were disallowed by the
Assessing Officer on the ground that the same were pre-operative expenses and operations had not started and therefore, such expenses were not revenue in nature and should have been capitalized.
The assessee accepted the addition and did not go for appeal against the aforesaid assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The
Assessing Officer also separately initiated the assessment proceedings under Section zZt(t)(c) of the Income Tax Act and imposed a penalty of
Rs. t3,oo BSSI-. This penalty has been deleted by the CIT(A) and the order of the CIT(A) has been affirmed by the ITAT as read.
It is inter alia recorded by the CIT(A) that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the expenditure was deductible and the same had been incurred for earning of business income whereas the Assessing
Officer disallowed the same on a legal ground namely it pertained to the period prior to the commencing of business. On this basis, the CIT(A) formed the opinion that two views were possible and in such i-
2011:DHC:14711-DB
>7
€ circumstances, there was no justification for imposing the penalty as it was not the case of concealment of any particulars.
After pursuing the record, we agree with the aforesaid view taken by the authorities below. No question of law arises.
The appeal is dismissed. tu
M.L.MEHTA, J.
July 22) zoai, sd
(I.K. SrKRI, J.
2011:DHC:14711-DB
3#
%o 22.07.2()11
Present: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue
+ ITA No. 87a/zorr
The assessee had claimed certain expenses in income tax refurn filed by it for the assessment year zoo4-2oo1. These were disallowed by the
Assessing Officer on the ground that the same were pre-operative expenses and operations had not started and therefore, such expenses were not revenue in nature and should have been capitalized.
The assessee accepted the addition and did not go for appeal against the aforesaid assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The
Assessing Officer also separately initiated the assessment proceedings under Section zZt(t)(c) of the Income Tax Act and imposed a penalty of
Rs. t3,oo BSSI-. This penalty has been deleted by the CIT(A) and the order of the CIT(A) has been affirmed by the ITAT as read.
It is inter alia recorded by the CIT(A) that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the expenditure was deductible and the same had been incurred for earning of business income whereas the Assessing
Officer disallowed the same on a legal ground namely it pertained to the period prior to the commencing of business. On this basis, the CIT(A) formed the opinion that two views were possible and in such i-
2011:DHC:14711-DB
>7
€ circumstances, there was no justification for imposing the penalty as it was not the case of concealment of any particulars.
After pursuing the record, we agree with the aforesaid view taken by the authorities below. No question of law arises.
The appeal is dismissed. tu
M.L.MEHTA, J.
July 22) zoai, sd
(I.K. SrKRI, J.
2011:DHC:14711-DB
JUDGMENT