9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds are either supporting or consequential to the main ground. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Government Company engaged in the business of providing long term finance for Industrial Projects. It is the second round of litigation. In first round of litigation the I.T.A.T. in ITA No.1116/Ahd/2001 vide order dated 12.03.2007 sent back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to verify the claim of the assessee whether it is allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act hereinafter) or allowable as bad debts. The Assessing Officer, in compliance to the direction of the I.T.A.T. issued notice and asked the assessee to furnish necessary details. Originally the disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee vide its letter dated 15.12.2008 submitted to the Assessing Officer that the assessee is a Government Company and being managed by the Government appointed Managing Director. Moreover, the company being wholly owned by the Government of Gujarat is subject to the severe government regulations and frequent review as well as audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The Ld. Authorized Representative, while explaining the nature of claim, submitted that in case of defaulter, the assessee charged penal interest and the said penal interest has been offered to tax in respective years. However, on settlement of the outstanding amount in respect of BIFR or otherwise the assessee company waived penal interest portion and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omer, the same is shown as income of the assessee. However, subsequently on settlement with the parties the penal interest is either waived or reduced. The case of the assessee that either such claim was allowable as revenue expenses under section 37(1) or it may be allowed as bad debts. The I.T.A.T. in the first round of litigation vide order dated 12.03.2007 sent back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify whether assessee s claim that the amount of ` 1,14,20,531/- is penal interest or not is factually correct or not. The Assessing Officer may also examine the alternate claim of the assessee that whether the same has to be allowed as bad debts. In the impugned Assessment Order, we noticed that out of ` 1,14,20,531/-, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has failed to furnish entry-wise and specific details required by the Assessing Officer. Merely on the basis that the assessee did not furnish specific details, the action of the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained particularly under the circumstances where the matter is old and it is practically impossible for the assessee to bring the material as required by the Assessing Officer. If we see the case prima facie on the basis of material available on record and as per above discussions, we notice that ₹ 80,64,458/- is similar in nature to `33,56,073/- as both the amounts are part of `1,14,20,531/-. It is also pertinent to note that, on examination by the Assessing Officer, no contrary material was prima facie found tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
