2012 (10) TMI 28 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - disallowance of loan pool account and bad doubtful debts - Held that - The addition of the similar amount had already been made in the earlier assessment year and no transaction of the said amount was conducted in the assessment year under appeal, would clearly establish that even on quantum, the addition was not justified in the assessment year under appeal. Thus, the assessee disclosed all the particulars of income correctly in the earlier year as well as in the assessment year under appeal. Since the figure on the above heads is coming up from the earlier assessment year on account of provision for loan pool account and bad debts, therefore, there is no reason to hold that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty is not leviable in the matter - direction to cancel the penalty - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for additions made for provision of loan pool account and bad doubtful debts.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a return of income showing a loss for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessing officer made four additions to the income, including disallowances related to provident fund payment, loan pool account provisions, bad and doubtful debts provisions, technical consultancy charges, and brand charges. The total disallowance amounted to Rs. 24,77,950, leading to a reduced loss for the assessee. Consequently, a penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty on certain disallowances but confirmed it on the provision for loan pool account and bad doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 3,16,673. The CIT(A) held that these provisions were in the nature of expenses that had not crystallized and were disallowed in the previous assessment year as well. The appellant was aware of these disallowances from the previous year, indicating that inaccurate particulars were furnished. The Tribunal considered the appellant's arguments that no deductions were claimed for these provisions in the current year, and the amounts were carried forward from previous years as opening balances. The Tribunal concluded that no penalty was justified as the appellant had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income, and the disallowance was not justified in the current assessment year. Therefore, the penalty on the provision for loan pool account and bad doubtful debts was canceled, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

In summary, the Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified for the provision of loan pool account and bad doubtful debts as the appellant had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The disallowance was carried forward from previous years as opening balances, and no deductions were claimed in the current assessment year. Therefore, the penalty was canceled, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.