9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A), Gandhinagar dated 13.7.2015 passed for the Asstt.Year 2009-10. 2. Solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 13,29,742/- which was imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Brief facts of the case ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missible u/s.28 of the Act which is adjustable while computing income under the head "income from business" essentially being incidental to business of the appellant. When the department authorities hold a different view and do not allow the bad debt as claimed by the appellant, in the alternative, the said amount of Rs. 50,06,147/- deserve to be allowed and adjusted as business loss." 5. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 20.6.2017 (supra), the impugned penalty does not survive. In other words, there is no room for the Revenue to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) in this case. Therefore, we cancel the impugned penalty and set aside both orders of the Revenue authorities passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the Open Court on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
