ITO, KOTA vs. KOTA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., KOTA

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 263/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09 cuke The ITO, Kota Sahkari Bhoomi Vikash Bank Ltd., Vs. Ward-1(2), Plot No. 3, Behind Income Tax Office, Kota. Rawatbhata Raod, Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAK 0720 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vipul Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonum Rai (DCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 28/05/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 30/05/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of dated 13.01.2017 of CIT (A), Kota arising from the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for A.Y. 2008-09. The Revenue has raised the following ground as under:- “On the facts and circumstances of the case, The ld. CIT(A) has erred in:- (i) deleting penalty of Rs. 22,68,548/- imposed U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act;

(ii) the appellant craves liberty to raise additional ground and to modify/amend the ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

the relevant material on record. In the assessment completed U/s

143(3) of the Act the AO made following disallowances:-

(i) Penalty interest Rs. 12,10,219/- (ii) Provision for bad debts and bad interest Rs. 73,51,000/- (iii) Deduction for TDS Rs. 19,803/- (iv) Recovery promotion scheme Rs. 19,68,019/- In the quantum appeal only two additions were sustained namely

provision for bad debts and bad interest of Rs. 73,51,000/- and

deduction for TDS of Rs. 19,803/-. The AO initiated the proceedings for

levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) and levied the penalty against these two

additions vide order dated 19.03.2015. The assessee challenged the

levy of penalty before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty

by considering various decisions and held that though addition on

account of claim of provisions for bad debt and bad interest was

confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) however, the same did not make it fit case

for imposition of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee has

disclosed all the relevant facts and particulars. We further note that the

assessee has filed the return of income showing loss of Rs. 2 13,71,14,852/- and even after the additions made by the AO the total

income of the assessee remained negative. There is no dispute that the

assessee is otherwise eligible for deduction U/s 80P of the Act however,

due to the fact that the assessee has declared loss in the return of

income the said claim of deduction U/s 80P was not made by the

assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee has pointed out in the earlier

assessment year the assessee claimed u/s 80P of the Act which was

allowed and even if after some disallowances made by the AO, the

same would not result to addition of the total income as the assessee is

eligible for deduction U/s 80P of the Act.

material on record when the assessee is Primary Co-operative

Agricultural and Rural Development Bank then, the benefit of Section

80P of the Act is available to the assessee and therefore if the AO has

disallowed the claim of provisions for bad debts and bad interest the

same will not result an enhancement of the taxable income of the

assessee. Even otherwise it is claim of the assessee which may not be

eligible as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act however

the same will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

or concealment of particulars of income attracting the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty by

following various decisions of this Tribunal as well as of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 158. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the

levy of penalty against the addition made by the AO on account of TDS

claim of Rs. 19,803/- therefore, once the assessee is eligible for the

benefit of Section 80P then claim of provisions for bad debt and bad

interest cannot be held to be a bogus claim amounting to furnishing

inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of

income. According, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of

the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30/05/2018. Sd/- Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan ½ ¼fot; iky jko½ (Bhagchand) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30/05/2018. *Santosh. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The ITO, Ward-1(2), Kota. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Kota Sahkari Bhoomi Vikash Bank Ltd., Kota. 4

., 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 263/JP/2017} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत