TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1046
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Since both the appeals are connected with the same assessee, these appeals were heard together and disposed off by this consolidated order for convenience. 2. First we take up the appeal in ITA No. 4135/Del/2014, wherein the grounds of appeal raised are as under: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XV ['CIT(A)'] is erroneous and bad in law and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 52,10,054/- levied under Section 271 (l)(c). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness of consumer and auto finance. The assessee filed return of income on 11/11/2003 declaring total income of Rs. 26,83,22,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed at total income of Rs. 36,56,53,378/- after making various additions including the addition for bad debts written off of Rs. 1,41,77,018/-. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income amounting to Rs. 7,64,14,855/- vide order dated 31/07/2013. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty in respect of the disallowance of bad debts written off of Rs. 1.41 crores. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....file of Assessing Officer to examine the basic ingredients of section 36(2) whether fulfilled or not. There is no dispute that debt has been written off. Further, we may clarify that AO will not go into the issue whether the debt had become irrecoverable or not in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in TRF Ltd. (supra). With these observations, the issue is set aside to the file of AO. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes." 9. We find that issue in dispute in the quantum appeal has already been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT-A cannot survive, and while deciding the issue the Assessing Officer, may take action for initiation of penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the principle amount relating such interest was already written off as bad and since the interest amount on such debt was never realized by the assessee and tax authorities had recognized the interest as income in the earlier years, interest amount qualifies as a bad debt within the meaning and understanding of Section 36(I)(vii) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend and/or withdraw the grounds of appeal herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either before or during the appeal hearing." 12. The facts in brief of the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hand, submitted that assessee has made a wrong claim for the deduction which was not allowable under the provisions of the Act and thus the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income to that extent and therefore penalty upheld by the Ld. CIT-(A) on the issue in dispute was justified. 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant matter of record. The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the penalty with following findings: "6.5 Regarding the additional claim of interest on sticky loans of Rs. 2.50 Crores, I find that the appellant in the earlier assessment years, had not recognized revenue on certain non-performing asset in terms of the Prudential Norms Directions, 1998 of RBI, however the Ld. AO in the assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by the appellant is incorrect qua the conditions entailed in Section 36(l)(vii), evidently the appellant has filed 'inaccurate particulars' to that extent. Under the circumstances, I uphold the action of the Assessing Officer of levying penalty on this ground of addition." 16. We find that regarding the issue of claim of Rs. 2, 50, 68, 788 in the computation of income pertaining to bad debts toward accrued interest the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has observed as under: "Further, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs. 2,50,68,785/- in the computation of income pertaining to the bad debts towards accrued interest since the principal amount on said assets have itself been written-off during the year ended Mar....