The Dy. Commr. Of Income Tax, Cir.-2, JAMNAGAR V. The Jamnagar District Co. Op. Bank Ltd., JAMNAGAR

ITA 247/RJT/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2671 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Wrong claim; Bad and doubtful debts; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 247/RJT/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JAMNAGAR / VS. THE JAMNAGAR DISTRICT CO OP BANK LTD., SAHKAR BHAVAN, RANJIT ROAD, JAMNAGAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAJT0272B ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAVEEN VERMA, SR. D.R. / RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING 07/05/2019 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17/06/2019 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX(APPEALS), JAMNAGAR (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 1 8.04.2016 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.03.2014 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CONCERNING AY 2011-12. ITA NO. 247/RJT/2016 [DCIT VS. THE JAMNAGAR DISTRI CT CO OP BANK LTD.] A.Y. 2011 -12 - 2 - 2. AS PER ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CH ALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 31,59,030/- IMPOSED BY THE AO UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIMARY COOPER ATIVE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY WITH ITS MAIN OBJECT BEING ADV ANCE OF LOANS TO FARMERS FOR AGRICULTURE. FOR THE AY 2011-12 IN CON SIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE INTER ALIA CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.3,39,69,786/- AS DEDUCTION UNDER S.36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT BEING AN AMOUNT TO T HE EXTENT OF PROFITS AVAILABLE DURING THE YEAR. THE AO RESTRICTED THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION TO RS.2,38,96,000/- AS WRITTEN OFF IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AND REJECTED THE REMAINING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1, 00,73,786/-. THE AO ALSO INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON SUCH PARTIAL DENIAL OF DEDUCTION AND IMPOSED PENALTY QUA NTIFIED AT RS.31,59,030/- VIDE ORDER DATED 21.09.2015. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, THE ASSE SSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE MADE DETAIL ED SUBMISSION BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH WHICH THE CIT(A) CONCURRED A ND GRANTED RELIEF FROM THE LEVY OF PENALTY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEV ANT PARAS OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AR O F THE APPELLANT FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION, AS UNDER:- 1. SECTION 271(1)(C) AS WAS OPERATIVE DURING THE RE LEVANT YEAR READ THUS: '271. (1) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE (***) (COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY P ERSON, (A) (B) (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR (***) FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, HE MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHELL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY , (I) . ITA NO. 247/RJT/2016 [DCIT VS. THE JAMNAGAR DISTRI CT CO OP BANK LTD.] A.Y. 2011 -12 - 3 - (II) . (III) IN THE CASES REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (C), IN AD DITION TO ANY TAX PAYABLE BY HIM, A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN, BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED (THREE TIMES), THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASON OF THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME . (***) (EXPLANATION 1. WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATER IAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSON U NDER THIS ACT. (A) SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OF FERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OR THE (**) (COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TO BE FALSE, OR (B) SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS N OT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ( AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONAFIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELA TING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOT AL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM), THEN, THE AMOUN T ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME O F SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHALL, FOR THE PURP OSES OF CLAUSE (C) OF THIS SUB-SECTION, BE DEEMED TO REPRES ENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. 2. THE APPELLANT WOULD FURTHER LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT AS PER THE ABOVE PROVISION PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED IF THE AS SESSES PROVIDE INACCURATE DETAILS OR CONCEALED INCOME AND MERE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM AND W ILL NOT ATTRACTS THE PENALTY PROVISIONS. 3. THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER SUBMIT THAT CLAIM TO THE EXTENT OF AVAILABLE PROFIT IN HOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IN EARLIER YEAR THIS PRACTICE WAS FOLLOWED CONSISTENTL Y. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WE CLAIMED DEDUCTION O F RS. 3,39,69,786/- TO THE EXTENT OF AVAILABLE PROFIT AND WITHIN PERMISSIBLE LIMIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VII A) READ WITH RULE 6ABA. HOWEVER CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF PROVISION MADE IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT I.E. 2,38,96,000/-. THIS IS MERE DIFFE RENT INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND DISALLOWANCE BUT OUR CLAI M WAS PERMISSIBLE AND HAS BASIS FOR CLAIM OF RS 3,39,69,786/- WHICH ASSESSING OFFICE FAILED TO OBSE RVE. ITA NO. 247/RJT/2016 [DCIT VS. THE JAMNAGAR DISTRI CT CO OP BANK LTD.] A.Y. 2011 -12 - 4 - 4. THE APPELLANT WOULD ALSO LIKE TO RELY ON THE DEC ISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN MATTER OF CIT-14 MUMBAI V S, NALIM P SHAN (HUF) IN I.T.A. NO. 49 OF 2013 THAT NO PENALTY IMPOSED DESPITE UNSUSTAINABLE/NON DEBATABLE CLAIM BY THE ASSESSES IF DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSE SSEE. 5. THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER SUBMIT THAT IN OUR CASE WE HAVE SHOW THE FIGURES IN THE PROFIT AND LOS S ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE RE WILL BE NO INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THE SAME IS DISALLOWED DUE TO THE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION A DOPTED ONLY AND MOREOVER IN THE FOLLOWING CASES INTERPRETA TION AS ADOPTED BY US IS ALSO ACCEPTED SO THE SAME WILL NOT AMOUNT TO NON DISCLOSER OF INFORMATION BECAUSE THE SAME IS ONLY THE DEBATABLE ISSUE FOR WHICH THE LAW REQUI RED TO BE DECIDED. 5. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO RELY ON THE FOLLOWING DECI SIONS OF THE HONORABLE COURTS IN WHICH THE INTERPRETATION ADOPTED BY US IS ACCEPTED IN THE CASE OF SYNDICATE BANK REPORTED IN 78 ITD 103 THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DEBIT TO THE PROFIT AND LO SS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFU L DEBTS, AN ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO 10% OF AVERAGE ADVANCES AS DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT, T HE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE AFORESAID DECISION WAS AS FALLOWS : '20. THE LD. CIT HAS ALSO ACTED UNDER THE MISCONCEP TION THAT DEDUCTION UNDER CL. (VIIA) IS RELATED TO, THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSES FOR BAD AN D DOUBTFUL DEBTS. THE TRUE MEANING OF THE CLAUSE, AS INDICATED EARLIER, IS THAT ONCE A PREVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS IS MADE BY A SCHEDULED BANK HAVING R URAL BRANCHES, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION, BUT WITH RESPECT TO A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL I NCOME AND ALSO A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE AGGREGATE AVER AGE ADVANCES MADE BY THE RURAL BRANCHES OF THE BANK. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS A SPECIFIC DEDUCTION GIVEN BY THE STATUTE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE QUANTUM PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSES IN ITS ACCOUNTS TOWARDS PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. 7. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO RELY ON THE DECISION OF TH E VIJAYA BANK, BANGALORE VS. DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX BY THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL ITA 578/BANG/2012 THAT EXCESS DEDUCTION MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THAN ACTUAL CLAIMED MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE ALLOWABLE . 8. THE APPELLANT WOULD FURTHER LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT WE HAVE NOT HIDE ANY DETAILS OR FURNISHED THE INACCURATE ITA NO. 247/RJT/2016 [DCIT VS. THE JAMNAGAR DISTRI CT CO OP BANK LTD.] A.Y. 2011 -12 - 5 - PARTICULARS OF INCOME, ISSUE BEING A LEGAL AND SINC E ALL THE FACTS WERE ON THUS RECORD OF THE DEPARTMENT, TH ERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. AT THE MOST IT IS A LEGAL ISSUE WHERE QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION IS INV OLVED AND SINCE IN A.Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09 THIS ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED IN OUR FAVOR ON PRINCIPLES OF HON'BLE ITAT, RAJKOT. 9. THE APPELLANT WOULD FURTHER LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT THE ISSUE IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE AND EVEN INTERPRETATION ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN SOME OF THE CAS E BY THE HONORABLE BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL SURF HIGH COURT A ND HENCE THE SAME IS NOT THE FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS BUT THE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE PARTIC ULAR CLAUSE. 10. THE HON. APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELI ANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (2010) 322 1TR 158 (SC) HA S HELD THAT 'MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSES, HAS CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR WAS NO T ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT , ATTRACT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, MINING AS INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW CANNO T TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICUALRS. 11. MOREOVER THE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL IN APPELLANT OW N CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 DELETED THE PENALTY ON THE GRO UND THAT THE CASE IS COVERED BY THE CIT VS. RELIANCE PE TO PRODUCTS PVT LTD WHEREIN HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH CLAIM W AS NOT ACCEPTED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE, THAT BTY ITSELF WOULD NOT, IN OUR OPINION, ATTRACT THE P ENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C), IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTIO N OF THE REVENUE THEN IN CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CLAIM MADE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A NY REASON, THE ASSESSEE WILL INVITE PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C). THIS IS CLEARLY NOT THE INTENDMENT OF LEGISLATURE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF IN CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN TH E FACTS OF THE CASE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED MATERIAL FACTS ON THE ISSUE OF ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON AT THE TIME OF FILLING OF RETURN ITSELF, AND CONDUCT O F THE ASSESSES BEING BONAFIDE, AND THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION BEING LEGAL AND HIGHLY DEBATABLE IN NATURE, FOR WHI CH TWO VIEW ARE POSSIBLE, I HOLD THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST THE REVEN UE, AND ACCORDINGLY, I AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED ORDER OF THE LD. JM ON THE ISSUE OF CANCELLATION OF PENALTY UNDE R ITA NO. 247/RJT/2016 [DCIT VS. THE JAMNAGAR DISTRI CT CO OP BANK LTD.] A.Y. 2011 -12 - 6 - SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AND POINTS OF DIFFERE NCES REFERRED TO ME BY THE LD. JM AND LEARNED AM ARE ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY. 12. RELIANCE IS PLACED IN THE MATTER DECIDED BY SUP REME COURT CIT V. SKYLINE ANTE PRODUCTS (P) LTD. (2004) 271 ITR 335 : (2005), THAT MERE OMISSION FROM THE RETUR N OF AN ITEM OF RECEIPT DOES NEITHER AMOUNTS TO CONCEALM ENT NOR DELIBERATE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE TO S HOW OR SOME CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND FROM WHICH IT CAN BE GATHERED THAT THE OMISSION WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO AN INTENTION OR DESIRE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIDE OR CONCEAL THE INCOME SO AS TO AVOID THE IMPOSITION OF TAX THEREON. 13. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE ABOVE DELHI HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. VALIMKBHAI H PATEL (2006) HEL D THAT IF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER WAS BONA FIDE, PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C) WILL NOT BE ATTRACTED. 14. THE PETITIONER WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT IN THE LIGHTS OF FOLLOWING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. AO IS TOTALLY WRONG, UNJUST AND MISSING THE PROPER VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS PRODUCED IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. 15. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND BY CONSIDERING THE LEGAL PROVISION AND EVEN THE HONORA BLE TRIBUNAL OF DIFFERENT JURISDICTION ACCEPTED THE INTERPRETATION ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT THEN THE SA ME WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHICH CALL FOR A PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 16. THE LD. AO HAS PASSED THE BIASED ORDER WHICH IS NOT BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BUT ONLY ON THE SURMISE CONJECTURES AND SUSPICIOUS TO HIT THE PETIT IONER WHICH CAN BE DEPICTS FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION ALSO AND IN THESE CASE WHEN THE BIASED MIND SET INVOLVE LACK S THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARID EQUITY. 17. IN THESE TYPE OF SITUATION AND CIRCUMSTANCE, TH E PETITIONER REQUEST YOU HONOR KINDLY ACT OBJECTIVELY AND MITIGATE THE HARDSHIP AND UNDUE HARASSMENT TO THE PETITIONER. WE REQUEST YOU HONOR TO KINDLY CONSIDER THE CASE IN THE LIGHTS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IN TOTA L AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME , REST IS WITH YOU FINE SET OF JUDGMENT AND WISDOM. ITA NO. 247/RJT/2016 [DCIT VS. THE JAMNAGAR DISTRI CT CO OP BANK LTD.] A.Y. 2011 -12 - 7 - FOR THE ACT OF SUCH KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER WIN RE MAIN GRATEFUL FOREVER. NEEDLESS TO SUBMIT THAT EN OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD KINDLY BE GRANTED BEFORE TAKING ANY ADVERSE, ACTION. DECISION: 6. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APP ELLANT AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DISCUSSION MADE IN THE PENALT Y ORDER. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CASE IS NOT FI T FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAS NEI THER CONCEALED ITS INCOME NOR HAS FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HENCE, PENALTY LEVIED IS HEREBY CANCELLED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE DELETION OF PENALTY BY THE CIT( A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE PEN ALTY ACTION OF THE AO AND CONTENDED THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AT LARGER AMOUNT UNDER S.36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT WAS MADE IN CONTRADI CTION TO THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED DR SU BMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF RS.3,39,69,786/- HAS NO STATUTORY BASIS WH EREAS THE FIGURE OF RS.2,38,96,000/- AS BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND RESE RVE ACCEPTED BY THE AO UNDER S.36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT IS BASED ON S TATUTORY TAX AUDIT REPORT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR T HUS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXCESS CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN DEFIANCE O F LAW WOULD NECESSARILY INVITE CIVIL LIABILITY IN THE FORM OF P ENALTY UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT 7. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HA ND, JUSTIFIED ITS ACTION OF HIGHER CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER S.36(1)(VIIA ) OF THE ACT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO 10% OF A VERAGE ADVANCES AS DEDUCTION IRRESPECTIVE OF BOOK CLAIM IN THE P&L ACC OUNT TOWARDS PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. FOR THIS ASS ERTION, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SYN DICATE BANK ITA NO. 247/RJT/2016 [DCIT VS. THE JAMNAGAR DISTRI CT CO OP BANK LTD.] A.Y. 2011 -12 - 8 - REPORTED IN 78 ITD 103. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASS ESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. AY 20 09-10 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THE AFORESAID PENALTY WAS DEL ETED BY THE TRIBUNAL HAVING REGARD TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. THE A FORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE T HE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HOWEVER UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AND OBSERVED THAT A BONAFIDE RAISING OF A WRONG CLAIM BY ITSELF WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO PENALTY. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE OF ELIGIBILITY OF LARGER CLAIM OF DE DUCTION TOWARDS BAD AND DOUBTFUL RESERVE WAS DEBATABLE AND THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME PER SE. THE LEARNED AR ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTIO N OF THE CIT(A) CANNOT BE FAULTED. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US IS WHETHER AO WAS JUSTIFIED I N IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF REDUCTI ON OF ELIGIBLE CLAIM OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS UNDER S.36(1)(VIIA) OF TH E ACT. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE CONCER NING AY 2009-10 BEFORE THE ITAT. THE PENALTY WAS DELETED BY THE CO -ORDINATE BENCH IN THE SIMILARLY PLACED FACTS WHICH ORDER WAS APPROVED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEI NG BONAFIDE AND THE ISSUE BEING DEBATABLE, THE LARGER CLAIM OF DEDUCTIO N PER SE CANNOT BE BRACKETED IN THE LEAGUE OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS WERE ON RECORD TO ENABLE THE AO TO FORMULATE THE OPINION ON THE ISSUE. THIS BEING SO, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO INVOKE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE CIT(A) IN OUR VIEW HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE NOTW ITHSTANDING THE ITA NO. 247/RJT/2016 [DCIT VS. THE JAMNAGAR DISTRI CT CO OP BANK LTD.] A.Y. 2011 -12 - 9 - FACT THAT HE HAS NOT ASSIGNED ANY REASON AND PASSED A PERFUNCTORY ORDER WHILE DOING SO. WE MUST SAY AT THIS JUNCTURE THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN SOME ELEMENTARY REASONS HOWEVER BRIEF IT MAY BE WHILE DETERMINING THE ISSUE TO ENABLE HIGHER APPELL ATE FORUM TO UNDERSTAND THE PERSPECTIVE. THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSIO N OF THE CIT(A) HOWEVER CANNOT BE FAULTED IN THE INSTANT CASE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (PRADIP K UMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 17/06/2019 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, R AJKOT THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 17/06/2019