YUM! RESTAURANTS MARKETING PVT. LTD., Haryana V. ITO, WARD- 27(4), NEW DELHI

ITA 3944/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0750 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RADHIKA PURI
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.3944/DEL/2019 Assessment Year 2009-10 YUM! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., 12 th Floor, Tower-D, Global Business Park, M.G. Road, Gurgaon. v. ITO, Ward-27(4), New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACY1884D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Radhika Puri Adv. Respondent by: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 25 08 2022 Date of pronouncement: 31 08 2022 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: Th e cap tio n ed ap peal h as b een fil ed b y th e Assessee ag ain st th e o rd er o f th e Co mmiss io n er o f In co me Tax (Ap p eals)-I, New Delh i [‘CIT(A)’ in sh o rt] d a ted 2 8 .0 2 .2 01 9 arisin g fro m th e p en alty o rd er d ate d 2 9 .0 3 .20 1 7 p assed b y th e Assessi n g Offi cer (AO) u nd er Sectio n 2 71 (1)(c) r.w. Sect io n 2 7 4 o f the In co me Tax Act, 1 9 6 1 (th e Act ) co n cern in g AY 20 0 9 -1 0 . 2 . As p er g rou nd s of ap p eal, th e asse ssee h as ch allen g ed th e imp o si t io n o f p enalty o f Rs.4 ,3 1 ,9 2 2 /- arisin g o u t o f q u an tu m ad d itio n s o f Rs.1 3 ,9 7 ,8 0 6 /- o n acco un t o f p rov isio n fo r d ou b tfu l d eb ts n o t ad d ed b ack in th e re tu rn ed in co me. I.T.A. No.3944/Del/2019 2 3 . Th e Assessin g Officer in th e s cru tin y assessmen t fo u n d th at th e ass essee h ad o n ly creat ed a p ro v i sio n fo r d o u b tfu l d eb ts in th e P & L acco un t which can n o t b e eq uated with ac tu al write o ff o f b ad d eb t en v isag ed u n d er Sectio n 3 6(1 )(v ii) r.w. Sect io n 3 6 (2 ) o f th e Act an d th u s a ssessee h as wro n g ly cla i med b ad deb t p ro v ision wh ich is a mere co n tin g en t liab i l ity . Th e Assessin g Officer all eg ed th at as se ssee h as fu rn ish e d in accu rate p articu lars o f in co me to th e ex te n t o f u nd er repo rtin g o f in co me to th e ex ten t o f su ch p rov isio n . Th e Assessin g Offic er ac co rd in g ly imp o sed p en alty o f Rs.4 ,3 1 ,9 2 2 /- b ein g 1 00% o f th e t ax so u gh t to b e ev ad ed b y su ch u n tru e rep o rtin g o f t a x ab le in co me. 4 . We h av e carefu ll y co n sid ered th e riv al su b miss ion s. Th e assesse e h as d e fen d ed its p o sit io n o n th e p l ea th at fu ll p articu l ars rela tin g to in co me an d ex p en d itu re were p laced o n reco rd and th ere is n o su p p ressio n o f an y p art icu lars/d e ta ils p er s e. 5 . Co n tex tu al ly , we n o tice th e o b serv ati o n s o f Hon ’b le Sup reme Co u rt in th e c ase o f Re lia n ce Pe tro Pro d u cts Pvt . L td . (2 0 1 0 ) 3 2 2 ITR 1 5 8 (S C) wh e rein i t was o b serv ed th at th e arg u men t o f th e Rev en u e th at su b mit tin g an in co rrect cla i m fo r ex p en d it u re wou ld amo u n t to g iv in g i n accu rate p art icu l ars o f in co me is n o t co rrect. By n o stret ch o f i mag in a tio n can mak in g th e in co rrect c la i m in law tan t a mo u n t to fu rn ish in g o f in ac cu rate p art icu lars o f in co me . A mere mak in g o f cla i m, wh ich is n o t su sta in ab le in law , b y i tse l f, will n o t a mo u n t to fu rn ish in g o f in ac cu rate p art iculars o f in co me reg ard in g th e in c o me o f th e as sess ee. If th e co n tent io n o f th e Rev en u e is a ccep t ed th en in case o f ev ery retu rn where th e c lai m mad e is n o t acc ep t ed b y th e Assess in g Officer fo r an y r easo n , th e I.T.A. No.3944/Del/2019 3 assesse e wil l in v it e p en alty u n d er Sect io n 2 71 (1 )(c), i.e. , cle arly n o t th e in ten d men t o f th e leg is la tu re. 6 . No ticeab ly , th e assesse e h as fi le d a retu rn o f lo ss o f Rs.1 ,3 4 ,5 7 ,6 4 6 /- in th e cu rren t y ea r si mi lar lo sses h av e b een cla i med in th e earl ier y ears. Th u s, in th e factu a l matr ix it ap p ears to b e a b o n a fid e an d in ad v erten t er ro r wh ere assessee h as fa i led to in clu d e th e p ro v isio n fo r b ad d eb ts in it s to tal in co me . In th e in stan t c ase, wh ere th e Assessee h as n o t d eriv ed any tax ad v an tag e o win g to h u g e lo sses, su ch mis tak e can o n ly b e d e scrib ed as h u man erro r. Th e Ho n ’b le Su p reme Co u rt in th e c as e o f P ric e Wa t erh o u se Co o p ers Pv t. Ltd . vs. CI T rep o rted in (20 1 2 ) 3 4 8 ITR 3 0 6 (S C) h eld in si mi lar circu mst an ces th at ass essee can n o t b e trea ted as g u il ty o f e ith er fu rn ish in g o f in ac cu rate p ar ticu lars o f in co me o r at te mp t i n g to co n ceal i ts in co me. 7 . In th e lig h t o f th e d iscu ssio n ab ov e, we are o f th e v iew th at imp o si t io n o f p enalty o n th e assess ee is n o t ju st i fi ed . We th u s rev erse th e ac t io n o f th e lo wer au th o rit ies an d d irect th e Assessin g Officer to d e le te th e p en al ty . 8 . In th e resu l t, th e a p p eal o f th e asses s ee is a l lo wed . Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/08/2022. Sd/- Sd/- [CHANDRA MOHAN GARG] [PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: /08/2022 Prabhat