9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of penalty of Rs. 4,29,361/- under section 271(l)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that during the relevant year, the Appellant was NBFC duly recognized by RBI and was engaged in the business of money lending and that the ICD to Modi Connect Pvt. Ltd. was in the ordinary course of business. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the bad debts having been taken as income of the previous year is not applicable to debt advance in the course of money lending business. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heet. Thus, the assessee has properly claimed bad debt in the assessment record. But the view of the Assessing Officer was different and the same does not amount to filing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 248 as well as various decisions of the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly supported the order of the CIT(A). Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT 403 ITR 407 wherein it is held that where notice did not show nature of default, it was a question of fact. The assessee had understood the purport and import of notice and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA No.118/Agra/2015 dated 19.12.2017. ii. Dr. Sarita Milind Davare, 184 TTJ 9. iii. Shri K. Prakash Shetty, ITA No.265 to 267/2014 dated 05.06.2014. The Ld. AR accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be setaside and the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) be deleted. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the only issue to be decided in the grounds of appeal is regarding the sustainable of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) when the inappropriate words in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act have not been struck off. A perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 dated 28.11.2011 shows that the inappropriate wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the ITA No. 4913/Del/2015 decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
