TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in respect of quantum proceedings of the assessee for the relevant assessment year, the penalty, survives in respect of:- (i) sundry balances written off amounting to Rs. 60,54,678, (ii) income-tax paid amounting to Rs. 5,446, and (iii) long-term capital gain amounting to Rs. 2,37,29,563. Briefly stated, the relevant material facts are like this. During the relevant previous year, the assessee wrote back sundry credit balances amounting to Rs. 2,97,58,682 on the ground that, in the opinion of the management, these amounts were no longer payable by the assessee. The assessee also wrote off Rs. 3,58,13,541 due from various parties, as the said debit balances wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the same and imposed the penalty by observing as follows:- The submission of the assessee is considered carefully. However, the assessee has not submitted any cogent explanation substantiated by proof that is acceptable as per the law. Further, the assessee has not even got its accounts audited, hence the genuineness of the accounts itself is in doubt. Hence I am satisfied that it is a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, and penalty is levied on account of wrongful write off of sundry balances. The tax on this disallowance comes to Rs. 21,61,519. The penalty, i.e., Rs. 21,61,519 under section 271(1)(c) at 100 per cent. of tax is levied. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... erroneous or false" and added that (page 166) "such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act" and that "a mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee". Keeping in view the fact that in the present case the penalty is levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and that there is nothing to indicate incorrectness of particulars beyond unacceptability of the claim of deduction on the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that the impugned penalty, to the extent relatable to write off of Rs. 60,54,678, cannot be sustained. We, therefore, delete the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en pointed by the assessee specifically at any stage, nor examined by any of the authorities below, and, therefore, the matter can at best be remitted to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for fresh examination on this issue. Having considered rival submissions and having perused the material on record, we are of the considered view that so far as penalty relatable to long-term capital gain of Rs. 2,37,29,563 is concerned, the matter deserves to be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of our above observations, in accordance with the law and by way of a speaking order. The Assessing Officer is directed to give a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee so as to enab....