2013 (5) TMI 440 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) deleted the levy - deletion of addition of advance from customers by CIT(A) - Held that - There is no dispute on the fact that the said advances are subsequently repaid. From the order of the CIT (A), we have noticed that, during the proceedings before the first appellate authority, CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition made by AO after carefully perusing and considering the submissions made by the assessee. Therefore no infirmity from the order of the CIT (A) and the same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for AY 2004-05.
2. Appeal against deletion of addition on account of advances from customers for AY 2008-09.

Issue 1 - AY 2004-05:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by CIT (A) for AY 2004-05. The AO disallowed certain expenses claimed by the assessee, leading to a penalty initiation. The major disallowance was on account of bad debts written off. The CIT (A) partly allowed the claims but confirmed the disallowance of certain expenses. The assessee contended that penalty should not apply as there was no willful default or concealment of income, especially when there were carried forward losses. The CIT (A) canceled the penalty, considering the bonafide nature of the claim and disclosure of material facts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A) decision, emphasizing that the claim was bona fide and disclosed in the books and returns, hence dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2 - AY 2008-09:
In the appeal for AY 2008-09, the Revenue challenged the deletion of addition on account of advances from customers by CIT (A). The AO added the amount of advances to the total income as the liability was treated as non-existing due to lack of evidence. However, the CIT (A) deleted the addition after considering the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee. The Revenue contended that the onus of identifying the customers and proving repayment was not discharged. The Tribunal observed that the advances were subsequently repaid, and the CIT (A) rightly deleted the addition based on the evidence and submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no infirmity in the CIT (A) order.

In both cases, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the CIT (A) based on the bonafide nature of the claims and the disclosure of relevant facts, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals in both matters.