9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the appeal of the assessee is merely academic in nature in so far as the computation of total income is concerned. Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - Assessee claimed higher deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) - addition restricting the provision to the amount debited in the Profit and loss account only - bonafide mistake - HELD THAT:- Assessee claimed higher deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) on the basis of the opinion of the Central Statutory Auditors. This practice was being followed by the other assessee similarly placed. It was only later on that when the view was canvassed against the banks in similar situation that the assessee came out by a filing revised return reducing the claim of deduction to the actual amount of provision created in the books of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haudhury, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Ramesh Magar And Shri Aloke Singh For the Respondent : Shri Pankaj Garg ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These two appeals filed by the assessee - one emanating from the assessment order and the other from the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called the Act ) - relate to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. In so far as the quantum appeal is concerned, it is noticed that the assessee is engaged in banking business. Return for the year under consideration was filed declaring total income at NIL, inter alia, claiming deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s concerned. 4. The second appeal is against the confirmation of penalty u./s.271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to the amount of addition of ₹ 97.35 crore made by the Assessing Officer restricting the provision to the amount debited in the Profit and loss account only. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the Assessing Officer has extracted the statement of Chairman of the assessee recorded by him on 15-12-2017. In answer to the question as to why deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) was claimed by the assessee at 7.5% of the profit before claiming deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) and 10% of the aggregate average of rural advances made by the rural branches of the bank as against the lower amount of provision created ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter on that when the view was canvassed against the banks in similar situation that the assessee came out by a filing revised return reducing the claim of deduction to the actual amount of provision created in the books of account. In our considered opinion, it is a clear cut case of bona fide opinion formed by the assessee in claiming deduction at a higher amount. There was no mala fide intention of the assessee to conceal the income or furnish inaccurate particulars of its income. The actual amount of provision was available before the Assessing Officer in the Profit and loss account attached along with the return and the amount of deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) was equally available as per the Computation of income. If the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
