TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. We have carefully perused the corresponding assessment order of A.Y.2003-04 passed u/s.143(3) dated 17.03.2006 and the penalty order passed u/s.271(1)(c) dated 29.03.2010. We have also examined the facts of A.Y.2004-05 as mentioned in the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dated 27.12.2006 and the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) dated 29.03.2010. The assessee is a limited company and engaged in the business of manufacturing of multi layer tube printed products, printed products, labels, stickers, plastic products and packing material, etc. For A.Y.2003- 04, learned CIT(A) has confirmed the following additions: "Depreciation Rs.56368033 Bad Debts Rs.12759710 Bogus purchases Rs. 7704308 Public issue expenses Rs. 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Tribunal for assessment year 2002-03 above, the departmental appeal is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is similarly allowed for statistical purposes on this issue." 4. Likewise for A.Y.2003-04 in paragraph 40 this issue of bad debt was decided in assessee's favour as under: "40. The assessee on ground Nos. 1 and 2, challenged the disallowance of bad debts of Rs.1,27,59,170/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. It is noted in the impugned order that similar claim was made in respect of Paras Trading Corporation in assessment year 2002-03 in which addition was upheld by the learned CIT(A). Since the assessee could not produce any proof regarding efforts made for recovery of the debts, claim of bad debts was disallowed fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0-01 restored the matter back to the file of the AO for reconsideration. Copy of the order dated 21-10-2011 is filed on record. The same is not disputed by the learned DR. By following the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2001-02 (supra) on the issue of deduction u/s 35D, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the issue back to the file of the AO for reconsideration. As regards for public issue, the AO shall follow the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2000-01 as is submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee. In the result, ground No.5 and 6 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes." 6. Penalty has also been levied in respect of "bogus purchases" however that issue h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The concern parties have furnished details and also filed confirmations even as per findings of the AO. Nothing is brought on record if any adverse findings were given by central excise authorities against the assessee for assessment year under appeal. The learned CIT(A) in substance accepted the claim of the assessee but merely on presumption and assumption observed that it is likely that the assessee would continue to receive bills without actual delivery. The findings of learned CIT(A) have no basis and have not been supported by any evidence or material on record. In the absence of any material on record against the assessee, we do not find any justification to sustain even part addition against the assessee. We accordingly, set asid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Apart from the above legal position that the impugned additions have either been allowed or restored back for reconsideration at the stage of the AO by the Tribunal in quantum appeal, we have also noted that learned CIT(A) has deleted the impugned penalty after considering the merits of each addition. In respect of disallowance of depreciation, it was held that the claim was made on the basis of certain documentary evidences and on that basis an explanation was offered which was not a false explanation, therefore, out of the purview of the concealment penalty. In respect of disallowance of bad debt, learned CIT(A) has expressed that the addition was made by AO on the pretext that no efforts were made to recover the bad debts. As far as the ....