9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T] wherein it is held that a mere making claim which is not sustainable in law will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee – Decision in favor of assessee - I.T.A. No. 2296/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2018 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM For The Appellant : Shri Bhupendra Shah For The Respondent : Shri V. Justin ORDER Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Mumbai dated 28.01.2015 and pertains to assessment year 2008-09. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under: 1) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the assessee has claimed the deduction in its Computation of income and has not debited by way of provision to its profit and loss account, the assessee was asked to justify its claim. Vide letter dt 19.11.2010, the assessee explained that it has made a provision towards standard asset reserve at ₹ 1.25 crores by debiting the same in P L account. This was done as per prudential norms prescribed by Reserve Bank of India, However, the AO observed that the provision so debited has, been added back by the assessee in its computation of income. 4. In these facts, the assessing officer made a disallowance of the sum of ₹ 3,79,05,255/- by observing that assessee cannot be allowed to deduction since it had failed to provide t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough the same has been added back while computing the income as the assessee wanted to claim ₹ 3.79 crores. In our considerate view and in all fairness to the assessee, since the assessee has actually written of ₹ 1.25 crores in its books, we direct the A.O. to allow the claim for the provisions of bad and doubtful debts to the extent of ₹ 1.25 crores only. 6. In these facts, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied and confirmed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 7. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. The learned counsel of the assessee submitted that addition in this case has solely been made as the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en debited to the profit and loss account and has only been claimed to computation of income. 11. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the assessee cannot be held to have committed any contumacious conduct so as to warrant levy of penalty. The ratio from the Hon ble Apex Court decision in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra) is clearly applicable. In similar facts this tribunal in the case of Vasai Vikas Sahakari Bank Ltd. (supra) the ITAT has deleted similar addition by holding as under: 4. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties. We find that the assessee has merely failed to provide the provision in bad debt and doubtful debt though the provision is made as per RBI guidelines in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
