9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty proceedings, found the assessee s explanation to be incorrect or without any basis. Revenue also did not bring anything on record to controvert the aforesaid submission. There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee has not challenged the addition made vide the assessment order. At the same time, it is well established that quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate in nature. Even if, for any reason, the assessee has not challenged the addition made in quantum proceedings, while deciding the issue of imposition of penalty regard must be had to the reasonable explanation furnished by the assessee. This is not a fit case for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned C.I.T.(A) erred in the following expenses are not covered by debts claim u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and, therefore, was liable to penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Sr. no. Name of Person Amount Nature of transactions i) Suryakant Malekar Rs.93,333 Sale consideration of car to the employee, written off ii) Vikrant Patil Rs.11,000 Advance paid to staff, written off iii) Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. Rs.1,07,156 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 88,155, on the basis that no justification with regard to the satisfaction of conditions laid down under section 36(2) was furnished by the assessee and thus, the assessee has deliberately tried to evade tax. 7. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Having heard the submissions of learned DR and perused the material available on record, we find that during assessment proceedings it was observed that the assessee had written off a sum of Rs. 2,85,269, being advances given in previous assessment years as unrecoverable. The details are as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the conditions laid down under section 36(2) of the Act are not satisfied. In the present case, the penalty of Rs. 88,155 was levied on the addition of Rs. 2,85,269 made vide assessment order on the basis that the assessee has not satisfied the conditions of section 36(2) of the Act. 10. From the statement of facts filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A), we find that the assessee made the following submissions in respect of its claim under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act: Suryakant Mayakar The Company has told its vehicle to Suryokant Mayekar towards the union leader of employee of the company for a lumpum consideration of Rs. 93,333/- the amount remained unpaid since 23-12-2010 and it being not realizable in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of aforesaid submissions made before the learned CIT(A), we find that in respect of each party, to whom advances/payments were made, the assessee provided its explanation for non-realisation of the amount resulting in its decision of writing off the same during the year under consideration. We find that the AO did not agree with the aforesaid factual explanation and made the addition disallowing the claim under section 36(1)(vii) r/w section 36(2) vide its order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. We further find that neither the AO nor the learned CIT(A) in the penalty proceedings, found the assessee s explanation to be incorrect or without any basis. The Revenue also did not bring anything on record to controvert the aforesaid submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
