TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant particulars were filed by the assessee along with return of income. Merely because the assessee did not contest the addition, cannot give rise to any adverse inference against the assessee, as in any case it was running into huge losses. Thus no penalty to be levied - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 1983/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 7-10-2016 - Shri R. P. Tolani, Judicial Member Revenue by : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Sr DR Assessee by : Shri K. K. Shah, AR ORDER This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Surat dated 15.05.2013 for Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. The solitary ground raised is as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 16,72,519/- in its return of income and should have transferred the amount of ₹ 49,48,456/- to 'Capital Reserve' account. Since the assessee was in the process of winding up, no useful purpose would have been served in filing the appeal inasmuch as the ultimate income was going to result in loss. Therefore, though the issue was debatable, assessee did not file appeal to avoid legal proceedings. Since the bank had not written off the loan, this was at the most a unilateral write off capital debt raised for plant and machinery. Therefore, technically it did not fall u/s 41(1) of the Act. It is further contended that all these details about write off were mentioned in the audited report filed along with the return; theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts Pvt Ltd, [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) If all the relevant particulars are filed along with return of income, merely because some item is added or disallowed based on the information provided in the return, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. ii) CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd, 236 ITR 518 (SC) Addition u/s 41(1) of the Act was not justified if the amount is written off by an unilateral and transfer entry in the accounts. iii) DCIT vs. Darshan Agro Oils Ltd in ITA No.26/Agra/2013 Addition made u/s 41(1) of the Act and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is deleted iv) CIT vs. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd, (2013) 35 taxman.com 313 (Guj. HC) The assessee s claim was not accepted in the assessment proceedings, it wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
