9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith an intention of understating the income. That apart, assessee having mentioned the amount in its Audit Report and Annual Accounts, we cannot say that the particulars furnished by it were inaccurate. In our opinion, CIT (Appeals) was justified in relying the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers [ 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] for deleting the penalty levied on the assessee. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.38/Mds/2017 & C.O.No.33/Mds/2017 (in ITA No.38/Mds/2017) - - - Dated:- 6-12-2017 - SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Dr. G. Ganesan, IRS, JCI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0(a)(i) and Sec. 40(a) (ia) of the Act. However, according to him, assessee was exigible to penalty on interest of ₹ 1,55,00,000/- disallowed by him. As per the ld. Assessing Officer, assessee s contention that non payment of interest to bank was inadvertently claimed as expenditure, due to a bonafide mistake, could not be accepted. According to him, if it were an inadvertent mistake, assessee would have filed a revised return, once it learned that the claim was not allowable u/s.43B(e) of the Act. As per the ld. Assessing Officer, assessee though it was aware that interest on loans taken from banks could be claimed only on actual payment basis and not on accrual basis, they knowingly ignored this. In the opinion of the ld. Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (supra) came to the aid of the assessee. He deleted the levy of penalty. 5. Now before us, the ld. Departmental Representative strongly assailing the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that assessee was a Company which was subject to Statutory Audit under Companies Act, 1956. According to him, assessee could not say that it was not properly advised. As per the ld. Departmental Representative clause(e) to Sec.43B was clear regarding interest on loans taken from Scheduled Bank. Contention of the ld. Departmental Representative was that such interest could be claimed only on actual payment basis. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FC Bank's Borrowings. The Term loan repayment is pending since February 2012 while the interest commitment remains unpaid since January 2011. The Company submitted its Draft Rehabilitation Proposal (DRS) to the Operating Agency, State Bank of India and is awaiting the sanction of the Second Re-structuring Package. The cut-off Date for the DRS is 3Ft March 2011 as per the Orders of BIFR and the Company has sought certain reliefs / concessions in Terms loans / interest rates with the lenders. However, please note that during the year ended 3Ft March 2014, HDFC Bank opted for a One-Time Settlement (OTS) of dues,' accordingly the Company settled the dues of HDFC Bank under OTS and the net gain of ₹ 9.97crs upon settlement ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
