Finding of the AO that in the absence of audit report, the enhanced claim is not maintainable over looks this factual position. It is undisputed that audit report for the enhanced claim had been furnished during the impugned 153A assessment proceedings along with Profit and Loss account and Balance sheet duly certified by the Accountant.
Assessee had declared an income by filing its return. The said return was selected for scrutiny through CASS on the basis of AIR. Assessment u/s 144 was made, resulting in an addition of Rs. 28,50,000/- as the assessee was found to have failed to explain the source of investment.
Assesee claimed deduction of Rs. 1.33 crores under Section 10A of the Act. On being called upon to explain about the eligibility of deduction, the assessee stated that it was entitled to deduction in view of fulfillment of all the requisite conditions as prescribed under Section 10A.
Merely because a notice u/s 143(2) had already been issued and the assessee filed revised return thereafter, disclosing additional income towards capital gains, which was not correctly shown in the original return, does not tantamount to detection of concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act .
Learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of CIT Vs Holcim India Pvt Ltd [ 2014 TIOL 1586 HC DEL IT] wherein it is held that unless there is an exempt income, disallowance under section 14A cannot be invoked.
The auditor’s remuneration and legal & professional charges incurred for maintenance of statutory books and its audit etc. were required to be incurred irrespective of whether the Company had any income or not and hence, there was absolutely no basis for considering a part of such expenditure towards earning of exempt income.
The assessee had made significant investments in the shares of subsidiary companies which are definitely not for the purpose of earning exempt income. The Hon’ble Tribunal in I.T.A. No.3349/Del/2011 in the case of Promain Ltd., after relying upon a Kolkatta judgment of Tribunal in I.T.A. No.1331
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT has in the case of M/s. Fortune Ploymers Industries Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT, has held that Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on an un-detailed assessment order passed in a cursory and summary manner .
The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has two limbs one is where, inter alia, assessee has to deduct tax and the second where after deducting tax, inter alia, the assessee has to pay into Government Account.
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT has in the case of DCIT V/s Soni Sonu Mirchandani has held that indexed cost of acquisition to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the gifted assets.
