Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 29 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s.36(1)(viia) - amount of provision for bad and doubtful debts as per the books of account - as per assessee revised return offering income should have been accepted rather than making addition for the equal amount - HELD THAT:- Irrespective of the fact whether the revised return is accepted or not, the computation of total income at ₹ 97.35 crore has not been assailed. The assessee has not challenged that the claim of deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) should have been enhanced to the originally claimed amount of ₹ 122.56 crore instead of the revised downsized amount of deduction at ₹ 25.21 crore. In view of this, it is held that the appeal of the assessee is merely academic in nature in so far as the computation of total income is concerned. Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - Assessee claimed higher deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) - addition restricting the provision to the amount debited in the Profit and loss account only - bonafide mistake - HELD THAT:- Assessee claimed higher deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) on the basis of the opinion of the Central Statutory Auditors. This practice was being followed by the other assessee similarly placed. It was only later on that when the view was canvassed against the banks in similar situation that the assessee came out by a filing revised return reducing the claim of deduction to the actual amount of provision created in the books of account. In our considered opinion, it is a clear cut case of bona fide opinion formed by the assessee in claiming deduction at a higher amount. There was no mala fide intention of the assessee to conceal the income or furnish inaccurate particulars of its income. The actual amount of provision was available before the AO in the Profit and loss account attached along with the return and the amount of deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) was equally available as per the Computation of income. If the intention had been to defraud the Revenue by claiming excess deduction, the assessee could have wrongly increased the amount of provision in its Profit and loss account as well, which it did not. Having declared the figures correctly proves the bona fides of the assessee. As in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Private Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] has held that a mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not attract penalty 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, when the assessee furnishes all the relevant particulars in his return which are not found to be inaccurate. There is no dearth of decisions holding that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on disallowance of expenses, which were not otherwise bogus. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct to delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|