9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Shailendra Bajaj, CA For The Revenue : Shri V.R. Sonbhadra, Senior DR ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, Mrs. Vinita Pahwa (hereinafter referred to as the assessee ), by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2013 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VI, New Delhi confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ) qua the assessment year 2009-10 on the grounds inter alia that :- 1.a That the Ld. CIT (A) VI erred both in facts and in law while sustaining the penalty of ₹ 1,56,154/- under section 271 (1)(c) levied by the assessing officer for alleged concealme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and the explanation furnished by her was found unsatisfactory and unacceptable and thereby imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,56,154/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) who has dismissed the appeal vide impugned order. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned order contended inter alia that due to inadvertent mistake in the audited account, the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken a consistent stand that she has inadvertently claimed deduction for provision for doubtful debts to the tune of ₹ 4,59,714/- due to bonafide mistake of her accountant, which has not been believed by the AO and has made an addition of ₹ 4,59,714/- by returning findings to the following effect :- DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS During the year under consideration the assessee company claimed provisions for doubtful debts amounting to ₹ 459714/- in Profit and loss accounts under the head Administration and other expenses. The provisions are not allowable as per act being an unascertained liability. Accordingly the assessee company vide order sheet entry dated 17.11.2011 dated show caused as to why t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rong claim of provision for doubtful debts. The revised computation of income cannot be accepted as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC) wherein it has been stated as under:- Entertaining a claim after original return is filed - Assessing authority has no power to entertain a claim made by assessee after filing original return otherwise than by filing revised return. Assessment is, therefore, to be computed on the basis of original computation of income. In view of the submission of the assessee offering provision for doubtful debts amounting to ₹ 459714/- and provisions of act whereby provisions are not allowable being unascertained liability. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has never disputed the audited balance sheet and books of account relied upon by the assessee. 11. Hon ble Supreme Court in judgment cited as Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) dealt with the identical issue and returned findings as under :- Held, allowing the appeal, that the facts of the case were peculiar and somewhat unique. Notwithstanding that the assessee was a reputed firm and had great expertise available with it, it was possible that even the assessee could make a silly mistake. The fact that the tax audit report was filed along with the return and that it unequivocally stated that the provision for payment was not allowable under section 40A(7) of the Act indicated that the assessee made a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
