2012 (10) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... howing a loss of Rs.90,19,440/- for the year under consideration. In the assessment order, four additions were made. First addition is of Rs.10,56,551/- on account of disallowance of provident fund payment of employees due to delay in payment. Second addition is of Rs.3,16,673/- on account of disallowance of provisions of loan pool account and provision for bad and doubtful debt. The third addition is of Rs.69,278/- on account of disallowance of technical consultancy charges paid to H.O. (PCDF), Lucknow because TDS was not deducted by the assessee and 4th addition is of Rs.10,35,458/- on account of disallowance of Parag Brand charges (Technical consultancy charges) paid to H.O. (PCDF), Lucknow because TDS was not deducted by the assessee. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant was very well aware about such disallowances because during the assessment year 05-06, the appellant agreed for these disallowances. Therefore, it can be said that the appellant claimed deduction for such provisions in assessment year 06-07 knowing very well that they will not be allowed, being in the nature of only provisions and not actually incurred. Therefore, it can be said that with respect to the provisions of loan pool account and bad and doubtful debts of Rs.3,16,673/-, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars relating to these provisions. Therefore, for disallowance of these provisions in the assessment order, the appellant is liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Considering the above facts and circumstances of the c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... conducted in the assessment year under appeal. Therefore, penalty is not leviable. He has submitted that the assessee though did not challenge the addition on quantum but the facts noted above clearly justify that the penalty is not leviable. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. On consideration of the above facts, material on record and the rival submissions, we are of the view that no penalty is leviable on the above additions also. Even if assessee did not challenge the addition of Rs.3,16,673/- on quantum, we are of the view that the assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income on the above issue. The AO made similar addition in assessment year 2005-06. PB-19 & 20 is the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X