TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....condonation of the said delay, accompanied by an affidavit of even date sworn to by the petitioner. According to the learned A.R. for the petitioner, after receipt of the impugned order, the same was forwarded to their tax consultants for advice, but due to inadvertent oversight by them, the appeal could not be filed. On noticing this mistake, the appeal was immediately prepared and filed on 13.12.2013. It is submitted that the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal was caused due to inadvertent oversight by the tax consultants and the mistake being not intentional but a bonafide mistake of oversight, it is prayed that a liberal approach be taken and the delay be condoned and the appeal be disposed on merits as the assessee has a good case on merits. In support of this proposition, the learned A.R., inter alia, placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471) (SC). (ii) CIT vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (C.A. NO. 10462 of 2010) (SC) (iii) Radha Krishna Rai vs. Allahabad Bank & Others (2009) SCC 733 (iv) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs. Ujagar Singh & Others (C.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... A revised return was filed on 16.12.2002 in which the total income of Rs. 32,47,744/- was from LTCG, but the business loss was increased by Rs. 8,36,91,997/- being provisions for diminution in investments no longer required written back which was stated to be inadvertently omitted to be excluded from the total income. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was concluded under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 03.02.2005 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 32,74,774/- under the normal provisions and 'book profits' under section 115JB of the Act was computed at (-)Rs. 4,87,49,500/-. The AO also allowed carry forward of business losses to the extent of Rs. 6,38,72,710/- . Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were simultaneously initiated in respect of disallowances made in the order of assessment, i.e. under section 14A of the Act, non-compete fee of Rs. 6,41,600/-, income from bad debts recovered amounting to Rs. 12,94,498/-, disallowance towards PF/ESIC of Rs. 6,852/- and donation of Rs. 1,859/-. 3.2 The AO levied penalty of Rs. 9,66,239/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case on hand for A.Y. 2002-03 vide or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is erroneous since the assessee has given complete disclosure of all facts in the return of income for A.Y. 2002-03 and accompany financial statements and that merely because addition have been confirmed by itself should not necessarily result in the levy of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income. 5. Penalty on disallowance of Rs. 7,61,476/- under section 14A of the Act 5.1 In this regard the learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that in the order of assessment, the AO made a disallowance of Rs. 2,44,22,750/- under section 14A of the Act in respect of expenditure incurred on interest on borrowings relatable to the earning of exempted income. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) restricted the said disallowance to Rs. 7,61,476/-, which was upheld by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2002-03 in its order in ITA No. 6720/Mum/2007 dated 12.06.2013. According to the learned A.R. for the assessee, the assessee had sufficient own funds (i.e. from share capital and reserves) of Rs. 191.91 crores from out of which the investments of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irections of the Tribunal, the disallowances were confirmed only of Rs. 7.61 lacs. Therefore, the issue is highly debatable one and it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed any particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we hold that on the facts of the present case the levy of penalty was not justified, therefore, the same is cancelled." In the case on hand also, the facts being identical; i.e. the AO made a disallowance of Rs. 2,44,22,750/- which the learned CIT(A) restricted to Rs. 7,61,476/- in the period under consideration. Following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2000- 01 (supra), we also are of the view that the issue of the disallowance under section 14A of the Act is a highly debatable one and it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed any particulars of income. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue was not justified and cancel the same. Consequently, the assessee's appeal on this issue is allowed. 6. Penalty on disa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the learned A.R., inter alia, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). 6.2 Per contra, the learned D.R. supported the impugned order of the learned CIT(A). 6.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record, including the judicial pronouncements cited. On an appreciation of the facts on record, it is seen that the assessee made acclaim of expenditure of payment of non-compete fees to ex-Directors amounting to Rs. 6,41,000/- under the head Miscellaneous Expenses. Admittedly, details of the same claim were before the AO in assessment proceedings as per the assessee's letter dated 23.09.2004 (copy placed at pages 58 to 67 of assessee's paper book) and similar details were also disclosed at Note 7(a) in Annual Accounts regarding post retirement payments to ex-Directors. After considering the facts on record and the judicial pronouncements cited, we are of the considered view that merely because the assessee's claim for the said expenditure as revenue was turned down in quantum appeal proceedings; that by itself would not be groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the AO, therefore the assessee had not offered the recovery thereof for tax, in our considered view, is not acceptable as the aforesaid action of the assessee, in not offering the recovery of bad debts to tax, is not in conformity with the mandate of the provisions of section 36 of the Act. It is not the case of the assessee that a legal claim made was disallowed, which is a debatable issue. In respect of recovery on bad debts written off by the assessee, the position in law is clear and unambiguous; the assessee has to offer the same to tax in the year in which the recovery is made. Since the assessee has failed to do, in violation of the mandated provisions of law, we are of the view that action of the authorities below in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of the assessee's not offering the recovery of bad debts written off amounting to Rs. 12,94,498/- in the facts and circumstances of the case is in order and we uphold and confirm the same. The assessee's appeal on this issue is dismissed. 8. Penalty on disallowance of employees contribution to PF/ESIC for delayed payment : Rs. 6,852/- 8.1 We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties....