TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s granted and has been also written off. There was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate facts - Loan unpaid and written off should be either treated as business loss or alternatively as capital loss was rejected – No reason for penalty for concealment can be imposed in the present case. Law does not bar or prohibit an assessee for making a claim, which he believes may be accepted or is plausible. When such a claim is made during the course of regular or scrutiny assessment, liberal view is required to be taken as necessarily the claim is bound to be carefully scrutinized both on facts and in law. Full probe and appraisal is natural and normal. Threat of penalty cannot become a gag and/or haunt an assessee for making a claim which m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information technology related services. For the year ending 31st March, 2002, the assessee filed original return on 30th October, 2002 showing business loss of Rs.36,60,53,984/- and capital loss of Rs.39,80,76,080/-. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the return was revised on 27th February, 2003, declaring business loss of Rs.11,72,50,688/- and capital loss of Rs.13,02,27,759/-. Along with these two returns, the assessee, however, had not filed tax audit report under Section 44AB of the Act. It was, however, stated that a scheme for restructuring of business was pending before the High Court and certain directions had been issued for preparation/presentation of accounts. Subsequently, another revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid and was rightly written off was not disputed/challenged. 5. Aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer has attained finality and was not interfered or reversed in the appellate proceedings. 6. Penalty proceedings for concealment under Section 271(1) (c) were invoked and vide order dated 31st December, 2009 penalty of Rs.35,18,326/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded on Rs.98,55,254/- was levied. The penalty order does not deal with the merits and whether there was any justification or ground to impose penalty. It has dealt with certain other issues regarding limitation etc. and only records that the claim of the assessee with regard to the loan had been rejected by the tribunal. 7. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulars of his income and there was no concealment of facts. 9. We do not see any ground or reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the tribunal. It is apparent that the last return filed by the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment. In the original return no claim on account of capital or business loss of Rs.98,55,254/- as bad debt written off on account of loan given to DCM International Limited was claimed. When the assessment proceedings were pending scrutiny and detailed or regular assessment proceedings had been initiated by way of a letter or re-computation statement, the said claim was made before the Assessing Officer. It is obvious and crystal clear that the assessee was aware that this claim would be examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
