2011 (11) TMI 821

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and Shri D. Anand, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. In the Revenue's appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: "1.a On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to ` 6,29,160/-. 1.b The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the debts written off fell outside the purview of provisions of section 36(2) of the I.T.Act 1961, that nowhere in the return of income or the financial statements annexed to the return of income the fact regarding writing off of bad debts was mentioned by the assessee and that only after scrutiny by the A.O. the material facts were disclosed by the assessee and hence there is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y under section 271(1)(c) had been levied on the assessee. It was the submission that the learned CIT(A) had cancelled the penalty holding that all the facts had been placed before the Assessing Officer and there was no concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. It was the submission that the order of the learned CIT(A) was liable to be reversed. 5. In reply, the learned authorised representative vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT(A). It was the submission that the write off of the bad debts had categorically been done in the books of accounts of the assessee and this was not disputed. It was the submission that the assessee did have a business connection insofar as any loss....