9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n question u/s.271(1)(c) has been levied pertained to “public issue expenses”, which has also been decided by the Tribunal by holding that a view already taken in assessee’s own case should be followed for this year as well - CIT(A) has deleted the penalty after considering the merits of each addition. As far as the onus on the assessee was concerned for the purpose of levy of penalty, according to CIT(A) all the relevant particulars were disclosed and there was no concealment of facts and the bad debt was erroneously disallowed - the assessee had a bona fide belief that the claim would be allowed in terms of Section 35D of IT Act - On the one hand the quantum additions have not been confirmed by the Tribunal and on the other hand the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s purchases Rs. 7704308 Public issue expenses Rs. 1908282 Total Rs.78740333 2.1 For A.Y. 2004-05, learned CIT(A) has confirmed the following additions: Depreciation Rs.41143665 Bogus purchases Rs. 7489107 Public issue expenses Rs. 913861 Total Rs.49546633 3. Before us a consolidated order of ITAT C Bench Ahmedabad pronounced for the A.Ys.1999-00, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 is placed dated 06.01.2012. For A.Y. 2003-04 in respect of disallowance of depr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar claim was made in respect of Paras Trading Corporation in assessment year 2002-03 in which addition was upheld by the learned CIT(A). Since the assessee could not produce any proof regarding efforts made for recovery of the debts, claim of bad debts was disallowed following the observation in assessment year 2002-03. We find that in assessment year 2002-03 the similar claim of the assessee in ITA No.338/Ahd/2006 above has been allowed by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. R. F. Ltd. (supra). By following the same decision, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and allow the claim of the assessee. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. 5. For A.Y. 2003-04, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for assessment year 2000-01 as is submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee. In the result, ground No.5 and 6 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Penalty has also been levied in respect of bogus purchases however that issue has also been decided in assessee s favour from paragraphs 42 to 45, relevant portion reproduced below: 42. On ground No.4, the assessee challenged the direction of the learned CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to the extent of 25% on disallowance of Rs.3,08,17,231/- made by the AO on account of non-genuine purchases. The revenue has raised ground No.4 challenging the deletion of addition and granting part relief of Rs.2,31,12,921/- on the same issue of bogus pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned CIT(A) have no basis and have not been supported by any evidence or material on record. In the absence of any material on record against the assessee, we do not find any justification to sustain even part addition against the assessee. We accordingly, set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) in confirming part addition and sustain the order in deleting the addition. In the result, ground No.4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ground No.4 of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 7. In view of the above paragraphs reproduced from the order of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2003-04 pronounced while deciding the quantum additions we have noted that either the impugned additions on which the penalty in question has been levi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not a false explanation, therefore, out of the purview of the concealment penalty. In respect of disallowance of bad debt, learned CIT(A) has expressed that the addition was made by AO on the pretext that no efforts were made to recover the bad debts. As far as the onus on the assessee was concerned for the purpose of levy of penalty, according to learned CIT(A) all the relevant particulars were disclosed and there was no concealment of facts and the bad debt was erroneously disallowed; hence, he has directed to delete the penalty. Likewise in respect of bogus purchases, learned CIT(A) has given his finding on merit that various evidences were furnished before the First Appellate Authority and in remand proceedings the AO had not found th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
