TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the penalty of ₹ 7,50,00,000/- ignoring the fact that if the assessee s case was not selected for scrutiny, its claim of the deduction, which was not in accordance with law, would have got allowed. 3. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the penalty order. He also submitted that the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank ltd. vs. CIT 343 ITR 270 was delivered on 17/02/2012 as has been noted by learned CIT(A) in para 3 of his order and therefore, at that point of time, the assessee could have revised its return of income because the time available with the assessee for revising the return of income was up to 31/03/2012. 4. Learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the issue in dispute was decided by learned CIT(A) as per para 4.1 to 4.4 of his order, which are reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:- 4.1 I have also perused the documents and judgments relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t not exceeding 5% of the amount of such assets shown in the Books of account of the bank on the last day of the previous year. Admittedly this Reduction is not available in the impugned year but in my considered opinion, a number of litigations on the issues involved in sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) makes the mistake committed by the appellant inadvertent and bona-fide. The mistake of claiming the provision for NPAs of ₹ 12,23 crore as deduction on basis of the RBI guidelines and the provision for bad and doubtful debts of ₹ 107.49 crore as deduction separately u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act has occurred inadvertently due to wrong interpretation of the statute. It is also seen that when the mistake came to notice of the appellant it revised all the returns voluntarily and withdrew the deduction claimed by it on account of the provision for NPAs made in various assessment years. 4.3 It is noted that a wrong claim of deduction or allowance does not entitle the AO to levy the penalty. In my considered opinion, disallowance of deduction claimed under bona-fide belief, though disallowed in the assessment proceedings will not attract any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee has not gone in appeal. It does not mean that the assessee has concealed particulars of the income. Raving found so, that the explanation given by the assessee is bona-fide, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the penalty order. (d) CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) We have, already seen the meaning of the word particulars in the earlier part of this judgment. Reading the words in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct not according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. . We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the main basis of the decision of CIT(A) that there has been a lot of litigation in respect of deduction allowable for provision for bad and doubtful debts as per RBI Guidelines under section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Act. This is also noted by learned CIT(A) that in two cases, the matter has travelled up to Hon'ble Supreme Court i. E. in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT, 320 ITR 577 and Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v.CIT, 343 ITR 270. In this regard, this was the argument of Learned D. R. of the Revenue that even after the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (supra), which was rendered on 17/02/2012, the assessee should have revised its return of income in line with this judgment because the time available with the assessee for revising the return of income was up to 31/03/2012. Regarding this argument of Learned D. R. of the Revenue, we are of the considered opinion that when the judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court on 17/02/2012, the total time available with the assessee for revising the return was only 1 month and a few days and in our considered opinion, this much time is not sufficient to hold that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o help to the Revenue because in that case, the assessee could have filed revised return of income at any point of time after filing the original return of income on 30/11/2006 but in the present case, as per Learned D. R. of the Revenue also, the assessee could have filed revised return between 17/02/2012 being the date of pronouncement of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank ltd. (supra) and before 31/03/2012 on the last date available with the assessee for filing revised return. We have already stated somewhere else in this order that this much time of one month and a few days is not sufficient time to draw adverse inference regarding failure of the assessee to file revised return of income because some time is necessary even to a watchful person to know about such judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and then to get legal opinion etc. and then preparing the revised return etc. and therefore, it is not acceptable that because of non filing of revised return during this short period of one month and a few days, adverse inference should be drawn. Hence, we hold that this judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court is of no help to the Revenue in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
