2013 (5) TMI 492 - HC - Income Tax

Advances of interest free loan - whether entitled to deductions u/s 36(1)(iii) - penalty imposed - Held that - Tribunal has set aside the penalty on addition inter alia for the reasons that such additions were made on account of judgment of Abhishek Industries Ltd. case(2006 (8) TMI 123 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court) and it does not establish that the assessee has either concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the claim of the Assessee cannot be said to be concealment of income, which may attract penalty. In respect of addition as bad debts expenses in the profit and loss account filed with the return of income Tribunal found that when the assessee has disclosed the particulars in the return of income and withdrawn his claim of expenditure being made because of an inadvertent mistake and offered the same as additional income, there is no justification to hold that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the order of penalty was set aside.

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposed on the assessee due to addition of certain amounts to income.
2. Claim of bad debts expenses by the assessee and subsequent withdrawal of claim.

Analysis:
1. The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in relation to assessment year 2004-05. The Tribunal had set aside the penalty imposed on the assessee following the addition of Rs.45,14,373/- and Rs.11,45,476/- to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was based on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd, where it was held that interest-free advances made by the assessee without any business purpose are not entitled to deductions under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the additions were made as per the judgment of the jurisdictional Court and did not establish concealment of income by the assessee, hence the penalty was set aside.

2. Regarding the addition of Rs.11,45,476/- claimed as bad debts expenses by the assessee, it was found that the assessee had initially claimed it in the profit and loss account but later communicated to the Assessing Officer that the amount was actually written off in the books of account. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had disclosed the particulars in the return of income, corrected the claim due to an inadvertent mistake, and offered the amount as additional income. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that there was no inaccurate furnishing of particulars of income by the assessee, leading to the setting aside of the penalty order.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal, stating that the additions to the income were a direct result of the judgment of the jurisdictional Court, and there was no justification for penalty imposition as the assessee did not conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income.