2018 (12) TMI 324

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....71(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') imposed by the Assessing Officer. 1 (a). Whether the Ld CIT (A) has erred in relying upon, inter alia, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s Reliance Petroproducts [(2010) 322 ITR 158] in deleting the penalty, not appreciating the fact that the ratio of the said case is applicable only in cases where there is a bona fide difference of opinions with regard to admissibility of a claim and not to the cases where the claim of the assessee is patently untenable. 1(b). Whether the LD CIT(A) has erred in holding that it was a case of a bonafide error not amounting to furnishing of inaccurate particulars and that case is covered by the decision in Price Water House Coopers V....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....90 ii) Disallowance of taxes paid to expectorate employees 5,25,160 iii) Disallowance of provision for doubtful advances made under section 36(l)(vii) of the Act written off 1,94,80,078 iv) Disallowance of doubtful debts and advances 98,164   Total 2,44,21,992 Based on the above additions, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and issued notice dated 7.12.2009. Pursuant to assessee's submission made vide letter dated 5.1.2010, the AO dropped the penalty proceedings vide his order dated 7.1.2010. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer on the basis of some information in his possession, reopened the case vide notice u/s 148 dated 27.3.2012. The AO recorded the following reasons: "The assessee is a Non-Resident. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessee the block of assets exists and as per the provision of the Act the loss is not allowable. Therefore the loss claim at Rs. 61,21,337/- is liable to be disallowed. The counsel of assessee did not make an objection to it thus an amount of Rs. 61,21,337/- is disallowed and added back to the total income of assessee. " Based on this addition, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and after considering the explanation of the assessee, a penalty of Rs. 25,62,569/- was imposed against the assessee. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty vide impugned order. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The learned DR reiterating the grounds of appeal submitted that the ld. CIT(A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....audited by qualified chartered accountant. In presence of these facts, the ld. CIT(A) has not fallen in error while holding that this was not a case of concealment. However, the fact remains that the assessee had made ineligible claim, for which the bona fide of the assessee stands proved from the fact that as per Form No. 3CD, at item no. 17(a), the auditor has reported that there is no expenditure of capital nature which has been debited to the profit and loss account. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the claim of loss made on the basis of tax audit report cannot be said to be non-bona fide. We have also gone through the decisions relied by the ld. CIT(A) and we find that in the present scenario, the said decisions are found applicab....