TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the penalty levied for disallowance of provision for standard assets of Rs. 1,93,30,000/- without going into merits of the case and only considering that the disallowance has been deleted by the ITAT, Jaipur. 2. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance provision for standard assets of Rs. 1,93,30,000 without appreciating the fact that the Misc. Application has been filed by the department before the Hon'ble High Court, Jaipur to recall/review its order dated 24.04.2018 disposing off the appeal of the revenue without going into the merits." 2. We have heard the ld. DR as well as the ld. AR and considered the relevant material on record. The AO levied the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition made on accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 1,93,30,000/- observing at Para 3.5 as under: "3.5 The facts are identical; there is no change into facts and circumstances. It is pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that this is a Scheduled Bank This fact is not rebutted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, we hereby direct the AO to delete the disallowance. Thus, this ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed." As the disallowance of Rs. 1,93,30,000/- made by the AO has been deleted by the ITAT, therefore, there remains no justification for sustaining the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of such disallowance. Accordingly, the penalty levied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income and the appellant has not furnished any submission on this issue. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the appellant had filed inaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 7,000/- by claiming the capital loss as deductible expenditure while computing the business income. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) with respect to the disallowance of capital loss of Rs. 7,000/- is hereby confirmed." Thus, it is clear that the penalty levied by the AO in respect of provision for standard asset has been deleted by the CIT(A) because the addition itself was deleted by this Tribunal in the quantum appeal. The ld. AR has filed a copy of the order of this Tribunal dated 04.07.2017 in the quantum appeal in ITA no. 982/JP/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his ground stands covered in favour of the assessee. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal (supra) is reproduced as under :- "8. Now the second question which arises for determination before us is whether the assessee has created any reserve/provision for bad and doubtful debts? The AR has contended that the assessee has created provisions for bad and doubtful debts under the nomenclature 'Reserve for NPA'. The terminology 'Reserve for NPA' has been used by the assessee in accordance with the RBI directions. As is evident from the assessment order, the assessee has indeed created 'Reserve for NPA'. For claiming benefit under the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia)(a) the conditions to be satisfied is: that provis....