TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. Nil. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 18-03-2005 and the total income was determined at Rs.13,71,112/- by making various additions disallowances. Against the order of Assessing Officer assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 19-10-2005 granted partial relief to the assessee. Against the disallowance which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.4,72,885/- vide penalty order dated 28-02-2007. Against the aforesaid order assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee by deleting penalty on certain additions. Against the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing under the provisions of section 36(i)(vii) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition holding that the appellant had incorrectly claimed this amount as bad debt. The main plank of the appellant's defense is that the claim that an amount of Rs.11,52,010/- was a loss is not disputed. It was further argued that the amount was offered to tax in the form of capital gains in the relevant year and therefore it was justified in making the claim as bad debt. This defense of the appellant is not sustainable because the issue is not res integra that only a loss of revenue nature can be claimed as bad debt. There was no justification for the appellant to claim the amount as bad debt under the law. It is not a case of mere difference of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed, or the particulars of income given in the return are incorrectly stated by any machination, the impact is bound to be on the figure of gross total income to be mentioned under various heads of income and also on the total income chargeable to tax. In fact reducing the figure of income that would be chargeable to tax would be the purpose of concealment of particulars of income or giving inaccurate particulars of income.' In view of the above discussion, it has to be held that the penalty has rightly been levied on the amount of Rs.4,52,050/-." 4. Aggrieved by the action of aforesaid, assessee is now in appeal before us. 5. Before us Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that on sale of shed by assessee for Rs.40, lakh on 14-10-1997, Rs.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of sale of factory shed. The fact of claiming of deduction was disclosed in the profit and loss account and also in the return of income. It is not the case when the assessee has not disclosed the amount or has concealed the particulars of income. The assessee's claim that it was of the bona fide view that since amount written off was out of the amount that had already been offered to tax and therefore it was eligible for deduction u/s. 36(2) of the Act. This bona fide belief of the assessee has not been controverted by Revenue by bringing any tangible material on record. 7. In the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the issue was that though the provision towards payment of gratuity was not allowable, the assessee claimed ....