TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of provision of doubtful debts - On perusing the computation of income filed by the assessee along with return of income, prima facie, we are convinced that the assessee has itself disallowed the amount in dispute while computing its income. In any case of the matter, after the order of the Tribunal, the addition as on date, doesn t survive. Thus, in our view, learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee appeal allowed. - ITA Nos. 5986 & 5987/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2023 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Department : Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. For the Assessee : Ms. Mrinal Kumar Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ispute in the appellate forum, the assessee wanted to settle part of the transfer pricing adjustment relating to US transaction amounting to Rs.22,30,70,035 under Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP). After MAP resolution, the adjustment in relation to US transaction reduced to Rs.1,48,20,847. In so far as, non US transactions for an amount of Rs.1,92,92,020, dispute was agitated before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, based on the additions made in the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income and ultimately passed an order imposing penalty of Rs.8,26,06,560. Challenging imposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Undisputedly, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the following two additions: i) Addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment; : Rs.24,23,62,055 ii) Disallowance of provisions of doubt debts :Rs.30,52,561 8. In so far as TP adjustment is concerned, the assessee had opted for resolving the issue relating to US transactions covering adjustment of Rs.22,30,70,035. After the issue was resolved under MAP, the adjustment was reduced to Rs.1,48,20,847. As regards, non US transaction covering adjustment of Rs.1,92,92,020, the assessee contested the adjustment before the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided the issue more or less in favour of the assessee. While giving effect to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has submitted before us that till date, the Assessing Officer has not given effect to the order of the Tribunal. 9. Further, on perusing the computation of income filed by the assessee along with return of income, prima facie, we are convinced that the assessee has itself disallowed the amount in dispute while computing its income. In any case of the matter, after the order of the Tribunal, the addition as on date, doesn t survive. Thus, in our view, learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. In so far as assessment year 2007-08 is concerned, while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made the following two additions: i) Addition on acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Tribunal. Thus, our reasoning/decision in respect of penalty on TP adjustment in assessment year 2006-07 would apply mutatis-mutandis to this year also. As regards penalty imposed on the addition of Rs.2,04,37,456, being addition on account of denial of benefit of deduction under Section 10A of the Act, it is observed, though, the aforesaid addition was proposed in the draft assessment order, however, while considering assessee s objection on the issue, learned Dispute Resolution Panel deleted the addition. In the final assessment order, the Assessing Officer has allowed the entire claim of the assessee. Thus, it is manifest, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on non-existent addition by overlooking the facts on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
