Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Disallowed Bad Debts – Tribunal Upholds Deletion by CIT(A)

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 9127
Case Name
DCIT Vs World Series Hockey Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2012-13
Advertisement


DCIT Vs World Series Hockey Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Disallowed Bad Debts – Tribunal Upholds Deletion by CIT(A)- No Penalty for Mere Disallowance – Claim of Bad Debts Made in Good Faith- Difference of Opinion Can’t Invite Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Assessee filed its return for AY 2012-13 declaring a loss of ₹1.04 crore. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) determining income at ₹5.31 crore after disallowing ₹6.95 crore claimed as bad debts written off.

AO held that since it was the first year of business, there could be no claim of bad debts & , therefore, initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As the Assessee made no response during penalty proceedings (owing to liquidation proceedings under Bombay High Court orders dated 10.02.2015 & 05.02.2016), AO levied penalty of ₹2.30 crore.

CIT(A) deleted the penalty, observing that the Assessee had made a bona fide claim duly reflected in books & computation, & mere disallowance of the claim could not attract penalty.

Revenue’s Appeal:

The Department contended that:

  • CIT(A) wrongly relied on Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (SC), as the facts were different.
  • Since the quantum addition was confirmed, the claim of bad debts clearly amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Tribunal’s Findings:

  • Assessee made the claim transparently in its books & computation; it was not a concealment but merely a difference of opinion regarding admissibility.
  • Non-acceptance of a claim does not automatically lead to penalty.
  • The case was affected by liquidation proceedings, which explained the absence of detailed evidence & late appeal filing.
  • CIT(A) rightly relied on CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158, SC) & CIT v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (259 CTR 383, Bom), holding that disagreement with a claim cannot constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s order deleting the penalty. There was no concealment or inaccurate particulars, only a disallowed claim made in good faith.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Vijayakumar Shetty
Qualification: CA in Practice
Company: Shetty & Co, Chartered Accountants, Mangalore
Location: Mangalore, Karnataka
Articles Published: 6,128

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.