9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e : Shri Karani Dan (JCIT) ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of dated 07.09.2018 of the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer arising from the penalty order passed U/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment year 2012-13. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of provision for standard assets of ₹ 1,93,30,000/- without going into merits of the case and only considering that the disallowance has been deleted by the ITAT, Jaipur. 2. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance provision for standard assets of ₹ 1,93,30,000 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion For Standard- Assets ₹ 1,93,30,000/- (ii) Disallowance of capital loss ₹ 7,000/- (i) As far as the disallowance of Provision For Standard Assets of ₹ 1,93,30,000/- is concerned, the appellant has contended that the ITAT Jaipur vide its order dated 04.09.2017 (ITA No. 982/JP/2015, A.Y. 2012-13) has deleted the disallowance made by the AO. I have gone through the copy of the ITAT's order filed by the appellant. The ITAT has deleted the disallowance of ₹ 1,93,30,000/- observing at Para 3.5 as under: 3.5 The facts are identical; there is no change into facts and circumstances. It is pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that this is a Schedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as agreed to disallow the loss of ₹ 7,000/- on sale of SFF assets. The loss on sale of assets would have been added back while computing total income in the computation but the same has not been done. Therefore, loss of ₹ 7,000/- is disallowed and added to the total income. Penalty proceedings 271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant itself has admitted that it had filed inaccurate particulars with respect to the capital loss of ₹ 7,000/- by claiming the same as deductible expenditure for the purpose of computing business income and the appellant has not furnished any submission on this issue. Therefore, I am of the consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, I am of the considered view that deduction in respect of the provision made by the appellant for standard assets is not an admissible deduction u/s 36(1)(vii). Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is hereby confirmed. 3.4 Under the identical facts, the Tribunal had decided the issue in ITA No. 240/Jodh/2013 by observing as under:- 10. After circumspecting the entire records vis- -vis the oral submissions, we are of the considered opinion that ground no.2 stands covered in favour of the assessee vide order of ITAT, Chennai Bench as discussed in the above excerpt. We have gone through the copy of the Tribunal Order referred above and are convinced that this ground st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The impugned order of CIT passed u/s. 263 is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 11. Therefore, by respectfully following the ratio decidendi of the above Tribunal Order we allow ground no.(2) of this appeal in favour of the assessee. These provisions which are in line with the RBI guidelines become allowable. 3.5 The facts are identical; there is no change into facts and circumstances. It is pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that this is a scheduled Bank. This fact is not rebutted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench, we hereby direct the AO to delete the dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
