9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in short 'the Act'. Case called twice. None appears at assessee's behest. It is accordingly proceed ex parte against assessee in the instant case. 2. The Revenue's sole substantive ground pleaded in this instant appeal seeks to revive the Assessing Officer's action imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 56,31,415/- in his order dated 26.08.2015 as reversed in the CIT(A)'s order under challenge as follows:- "I have considered the A.O's finding and perused the written submission along with the assessment order. The A.O. had impose the penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, in respect of disallowance of Rs. 1,82,24,646/- in respect of provisions for bad & doubtful debts, holding that the appellant had made a "provision of NPA" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the Case of In the case of CIT Vs Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd, 322 ITR (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that the disallowance made by the assessing authority in the assessment order of the Act were solely on account of difference views taken on the same set of facts and therefore, they could, at the most, be termed as difference of opinion but nothing to do with the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income, The Appellant has also relied upon the judgemtn of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26, wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer is not bound to levy penalty automatically simply because the quantum addition has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to the facts of the case. Hence, there is no scope for levy of penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) of the LT. Act, 1961 as there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the A.O. was not justified in imposition of penalty amounting to Rs. 56,31,415/- . Accordingly, the penalty of Rs. 56,31,415/- is directed is to be deleted. These grounds are allowed." 3. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the impugned penalty. We find no merit in Revenue's instant grievance. This taxpayer is a co-operative society. It claimed sec. 36(1)(viia) bad debts deduction allowable for a co-operative society / b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
