9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ultimate conclusion of the CIT(A) however cannot be faulted in the instant case. - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 247/Rjt/2016 - - - Dated:- 17-6-2019 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.R. For the Respondent : None ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Jamnagar ( CIT(A) in short), dated 18.04.2016 arising in the assessment order dated 19.03.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2011-12. 2. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty of ₹ 31,59,030/- imposed by the AO under s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural Society with its main object being advance of loans to farmers for agriculture. For the AY 2011-12 in consideration, the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him), then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 2. The Appellant would further like to submit that as per the above provision penalty can be levied if the assesses provide inaccurate details or concealed income and mere disallowance of claim would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of claim and will not attracts the penalty provisions. 3. The appellant would like to further submit that claim to the extent of available profit in hooks of accounts and in earlier year this practice was followed consistently. In the year under consideration we claimed deduction of ₹ 3,39,69,786/- to the extent of available profit and within permissible limit of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) read with rule 6ABA. However CIT(A) has restricted deduction to the extent of provision made in profit and loss account i.e. 2,38,96,000/-. This is mere different interpretation of law and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion made in the return of income than actual claimed made in the books of accounts are allowable. 8. The appellant would further like to submit that we have not hide any details or furnished the inaccurate particulars of income, issue being a legal and since all the facts were on thus record of the department, there is no question of any concealment or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income. At the most it is a legal issue where question of Interpretation is involved and Since in A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 this issue has been decided in our favor on principles of Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot. 9. The appellant would further like to submit that the issue is highly debatable and even interpretation adopted by the Appellant have been accepted in some of the case by the Honorable Benches of Tribunal surf High Court and hence the same is not the furnishing of in accurate particulars but the Misinterpretation of the Particular Clause. 10. The Hon. apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 1TR 158 (SC) has held that merely because the Assesses, has claimed the expenditure, which claim was not ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Valimkbhai H Patel (2006) held that if the explanation given by the Petitioner was bonafide, penalty u/s 271(1)( C) will not be attracted. 14. The petitioner would like to submit that in the lights of following facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO is totally wrong, unjust and missing the proper verification of documents and records produced in confirming the Impugned Assessment Order. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and by considering the legal provision and even the Honorable Tribunal of different jurisdiction accepted the Interpretation adopted by the Appellant then the same would not amount to furnishing of the inaccurate particulars which call for a penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. 16. The Ld. AO has passed the biased order which is not based on the provisions of the Act but only on the surmise conjectures and suspicious to hit the petitioner which can be depicts from the above discussion also and in these case when the biased mind set involve lacks the principles of natural justice arid equity. 17. In these type of situation and circumstance, The petitioner request you hono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceding assessment year i.e. AY 2009-10 in assessee s own case. The aforesaid penalty was deleted by the Tribunal having regard to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon ble Gujarat High Court. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court however upheld the order of the ITAT and observed that a bonafide raising of a wrong claim by itself would not give rise to penalty. It was further observed that the issue of eligibility of larger claim of deduction towards bad and doubtful reserve was debatable and there was no concealment of income per se. The learned AR accordingly submitted that the action of the CIT(A) cannot be faulted. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The controversy before us is whether AO was justified in imposing penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of reduction of eligible claim of bad and doubtful debts under s.36(1)(viia) of the Act. We find that identical issue arose in assessee s own case concerning AY 2009-10 before the ITAT. The penalty was deleted by the co-ordinate bench in the similarly placed facts w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
