Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (11) TMI 742

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te businessman but it is a Govt. statutory organisation. No such allegation is justified in the absence of reliable evidence in support thereof. There is no such evidence forthcoming from the records except the bald statement of the Ld. AO which is bereft of any material on facts or in law establishing malafide intention on the part of the assessee. Element of conscious furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee is absolutely lacking. Reliance on various decisions by the CIT(A) is off the mark. The income declared by the assessee in the revised return under the normal provisions of the Act is the same as assessed by the Ld. AO. It is testimony of the bonafide intention of the assessee to file return reflecting the tru .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not come into existence. No penalty can be levied on the addition/disallowance made on the basis of retrospective amendment under the law. Thus as relying on Eastern India Powertech Ltd [ 2014 (11) TMI 374 - ITAT DELHI] , M/S DCM SHRIRAM CONSOLIDATED LTD., [ 2012 (7) TMI 941 - ITAT DELHI] , M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILISERS CHEMICALS LTD. [ 2014 (10) TMI 152 - ITAT JAIPUR] levy of the impugned penalty by the Ld. AO and confirmation thereof by the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly unwarranted, unjustified and is unsustainable on merits. Decided in favour of assessee. - Dr. Brr Kumar, Accountant Member And Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, Ms. Supriya Mehta, CA For the Department : Ms. Monika Dhami, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Reserve (Rs. 10,00,00,000/-); Proposed dividend (Rs. 14,00,00,000/-); Taxes on proposed dividend (Rs. 1,96,35,000/-); Advance against depreciation (Rs. 13,70,00,000/- and provision for doubtful debts (Rs. 3,29,00,000/-). 3. In response to show cause notice, the assessee submitted before the Ld. AO during penalty proceedings that at the time of filing return, provisions of section 115JB of the Act did not provide for any such adjustment on account of provision for doubtful debts. There was no attempt to file inaccurate particulars of income. Confirmation of the impugned additions/disallowances is only for the purpose of charge of income tax and cannot be used for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The explanation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Hon ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue against the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565. 6. The Ld. CIT-DR defended the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It is submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has supported the order of the Ld. AO who mentioned in para 11 of the penalty order that consciously furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee attracts penalty by citing numerous judicial precedents. 7. We have given our very careful thought to the submission of the parties and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the assessee company is a Public Sector Undertaking engaged in the business of generation of power. Therefore, no malafi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... um appeal the Tribunal in its order in ITA No. 5510/Del/2010 dated 01.09.2017 held that provision for ex gratia leave salary is an ascertained liability which can not be adjusted while working out the book profit under section 115JB of the Act reversing the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. However, the finding (supra) of the Tribunal has been overlooked by the Ld. AO/CIT(A) for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This is not fair. No penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is exigible if the disallowance itself has been deleted by the Tribunal in quantum appeal. 10. As regards the disallowance of Rs. 3,29,00,000/- on account of provision for doubtful debts under the provisions of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates