RBM Pati Joint Venture Vs DDIT (ITAT Delhi)
An insight over the penalty order, we find that the penalty was initiated on account of loss claimed by the appellant on sale of assets, even though, that particular block of assets had not been exhausted. We do not find any justification to discard the findings reached by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee had duly disclosed the loss on sale of assets at Rs. 61,21,337/-, being part of administrative expenses and this amount was duly appearing in the schedules forming part of profit and loss account for the year under consideration.
The accounts are 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.
