Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1509 - ITAT MUMBAIPenalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - addition on account of write back of bad debts, writing back of investments, deduction u/s 10(23) disallowance of depreciation on lease transactions treated as finance transactions, expenses for earning dividend u/s 80M, expenses apportioned for earning dividend income, share issue expenses and disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has passed very reasoned and detailed order giving detailed explanations and justifications for deleting the penalty imposed by the AO on various disallowances, the details whereof has been given hereinabove. We find that under Rule 8D of the Rules, the disallowance was made by following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and most of the issues are therefore are covered by the assessee’s own case and we also find that all the facts have been fully disclosed in the return of income and in the assessment proceedings and therefore do not attract any penal action u/s 271(1)(c ) specifically linking with the disallowance under rule 8D, the same was made by following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court which was not available at the time of filing of the return. The rest of the expenses were claimed by following the decisions in assessee’s own cases for the assessment year 1987-88 which ultimately has been followed by the ld.CIT(A). Disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) and the issue with regard to deduction u/s 10(23G) - Section 14A was introduced by the Finance Act, 2001whereas the return of income was filed before 29.11.1997. On the issue of depreciation on lease asset, the same was deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the earlier year in assessee’s own case and hence no order of ld.CIT(A) on this issue is correct. On disallowance u/s 80M, the expenses apportioned to earning the dividend income and mentioned in the return of income and thus the penalty was rightly deleted by the FAA. Disallowance and deduction u/s 36(1)(viii), the deduction was verifiable as linked with the business profit of the assessee and the CIT(A) was also justified in deleting the same. With regard to writing of bad debts, the investment were not claimed in the return of income and claimed in the assessment proceedings and therefore do not constitute in filing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. DR except reiterating the contentions as raised before the ld. CIT(A) neither brought any material to prove contrary to the findings of the ld.CIT(A) nor produced any case law so as to compel us to take a different view than the view so taken by the CIT(A). No infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we confirm the action of the ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
|