9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that quantum appeal of the Appellant is partly decided by the order of the IT AT in favour of the Appellant for same year. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming the above penalty by overlooking the order of the ITAT. 3. Brief facts in this case which have led to the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in this case are as under: During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 3,79,05,255/- on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts, allowable u/s. 36 of the Act. The AO further observed that the said claim has been made by the assessee in the computation of income. Although the assessee has not specified the sub-section/clause of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition. 5. Upon the assessee's appeal the ITAT granted part relief for a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores. The ITAT in the order has concluded as under: 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material evidence brought on record in the form of paper book. The computation of income is exhibited at page-44 and a perusal of this computation show that the assessee has added back standard asset reserve amounting to Rs. 1.25 crores to its income. We further find in the same computation of income, the assessee has deducted provision for bad and doubtnil debts allowable u/s. 36(viia) at Rs. 3,79,05,255/-. However, a perusal of the statement of accounts of the assessee show that althoug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount claimed by the assessee was based upon RBI Prudential norms. He submitted that disallowance of the claim of the assessee cannot lead to levy of penalty. In this regard, he placed reliance upon decision of this tribunal in the case of Vasai Vikas Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT (in ITA No. 1231/Mum/2016 vide order dated 22.03.2018). 9. The learned departmental representative, on the other hand, supported the order's of authorities below. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) is not applicable in this case. He submitted that assessee has not substantiated the amount claimed. Hence, he pleaded that the penalty should be sustained in this case. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L account as per the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the assessee had neither concealed nor filed any inaccurate particulars of income. the assessee has duly disclosed the facts of income in its return of income filed before the department. Therefore, we are of the view that the issue in controversy is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) Petroproduct (supra) wherein it is held that a mere making claim which is not sustainable in law will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. such claim made in return cannot amount to inaccurate particular and no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) can be imposed. 12. In our cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
