2014 (7) TMI 333 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act Amount paid to Nirma Education & Research Foundation Disallowance of bad debts - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case for the earlier assessment year, it has been held that, The AO rightly made disallowance of advertisement expenses amounting to ₹ 1,00,00,000/- & disallowance of bad debts amounting to ₹ 2,23,63,430/- and also issued notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act - assessee submitted that the addition made on the basis of the disallowances of bad debts and advertisement expenses have already been deleted in earlier assessment year - Since both the additions, in respect of bad debts and advertisement expenses have been deleted by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal thus, penalty imposed thereon does not survive thus, there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of payment to Nirma Education & Research Foundation.
2. Validity of the order of the Assessing Officer in imposing penalty.
3. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of payment to Nirma Education & Research Foundation
The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty of Rs. 30,10,000 levied under section 271(1)(c) concerning the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,00,000 paid to Nirma Education & Research Foundation. The Assessing Officer had imposed the penalty, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted it. The Tribunal noted that the disallowance of the payment to Nirma Education & Research Foundation had been deleted in a previous case, leading to the deletion of the penalty. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty.

Issue 2: Validity of the order of the Assessing Officer in imposing penalty
The Assessing Officer had imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for disallowances related to advertisement expenses and bad debts. However, the Tribunal noted that in a previous case, the Coordinate Bench had decided in favor of the assessee, leading to the deletion of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. As both additions were deleted by the Tribunal in the previous case, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer did not stand. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty.

Issue 3: Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) seeking the restoration of the Assessing Officer's order. However, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the previous decisions by the Coordinate Bench, upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was upheld.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the penalty by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) based on the decisions of the Coordinate Bench in previous cases where the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.