9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r standard assets of Rs. 1,93,30,000/- without going into merits of the case and only considering that the disallowance has been deleted by the ITAT, Jaipur. 2. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance provision for standard assets of Rs. 1,93,30,000 without appreciating the fact that the Misc. Application has been filed by the department before the Hon'ble High Court, Jaipur to recall/review its order dated 24.04.2018 disposing off the appeal of the revenue without going into the merits." 2. We have heard the ld. DR as well as the ld. AR and considered the relevant material on record. The AO levied the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition made on account of disallowance of Rs. 1,93,30,000/- towards the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no change into facts and circumstances. It is pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that this is a Scheduled Bank This fact is not rebutted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, we hereby direct the AO to delete the disallowance. Thus, this ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed." As the disallowance of Rs. 1,93,30,000/- made by the AO has been deleted by the ITAT, therefore, there remains no justification for sustaining the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of such disallowance. Accordingly, the penalty levied by the AO in respect of the disallowance of provision For Standard Assets" of Rs. 1,93,30,000/- is here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 7,000/- by claiming the capital loss as deductible expenditure while computing the business income. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) with respect to the disallowance of capital loss of Rs. 7,000/- is hereby confirmed." Thus, it is clear that the penalty levied by the AO in respect of provision for standard asset has been deleted by the CIT(A) because the addition itself was deleted by this Tribunal in the quantum appeal. The ld. AR has filed a copy of the order of this Tribunal dated 04.07.2017 in the quantum appeal in ITA no. 982/JP/2015 wherein the Tribunal has deleted the addition made by the AO. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in para 3.3 to 3.5 are as under:- "3.3. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermination before us is whether the assessee has created any reserve/provision for bad and doubtful debts? The AR has contended that the assessee has created provisions for bad and doubtful debts under the nomenclature 'Reserve for NPA'. The terminology 'Reserve for NPA' has been used by the assessee in accordance with the RBI directions. As is evident from the assessment order, the assessee has indeed created 'Reserve for NPA'. For claiming benefit under the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia)(a) the conditions to be satisfied is: that provision for bad and doubtful debts should have been made by the bank eligible to claim such deduction. Co-operative Banks do not strictly follow the provisions of Banking Regulation Act for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
