DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI v. PARLE PET P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 391/MUM/2010 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 39119914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AABCP1640D
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 391/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI
Respondent PARLE PET P. LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 20-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 11-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 11-07-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 15-01-2010
Judgment Text
1 ITA 391 /M/2010 M/ S PARLE PET PVT. LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL J.M. AND SHRI R.K. PANDA A.M. ITA NO. 391/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 DCIT 8(2) R. NO. 216-A AAYKAR BHAWAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 20. VS. M/S PARLE PET PVT. LTD. WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI.400099. PAN AABCP1640D APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI ANEXANDER CHAN DY RESPONDENT BY SHRI YOGESH THAR ORDER PER R.K. PANDA A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DT. 28.10.2009 OF CIT(A)- 17 MUMBAI RELATING TO A.Y. 2004-05. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF ` 39 05 601/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF BUSINESS SERVICE CENTER TRADING OF PACKAGED DRI NKING WATER AND HEALTH FITNESS CENTER. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RET URN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2004- 05 ON 30.10.2004 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT ` 6 37 04 300/-. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y HAS LET OUT AN AREA ADMEASURING 11329 SQ. FT. TO M/S PARLE INTERNATIONA L PVT. LTD. M/S PARLE SALES & SERVICES PVT. LTD. M/S PARLE AGRO PVT. LTD. AND M/S ALNAS PLASTICS PVT. LTD. 2 ITA 391 /M/2010 M/ S PARLE PET PVT. LTD. @ ` 90/- PER SQ. FT. PER MONTH AND RECEIVED TOTAL COMP ENSATION OF ` 1 31 80 800/-. THE ASSESSEE TREATED THE SAME AS BU SINESS INCOME AND CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES OUT OF THE SAME AMOUNTING TO ` 53 18 142/-. IT ALSO CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE PREMISES AMOUNTING TO ` 18 38 952/-. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIST INGUISHING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE HIM THE A.O. TREATED THE CO MPENSATION AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 24 O F THE I.T. ACT AT ` 37 97 245/- AND MUNICIPAL TAX AMOUNTING TO ` 5 23 315/- HE DETERMINED THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT ` 88 60 240/-. 3.1 SIMILARLY THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED PRIOR PERIOD INCOME AT ` 11 45 378/- AND PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE AT ` 5 59 747/- AND NET PRIOR PERIOD INCOME AMOUNTING TO ` 5 85 631/- HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. IN CASE OF M ERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING EXPENSES OF THE RELEVANT YEAR ARE ONLY ALLOWABLE IN THAT YEAR. EARLIER YEARS EXPENSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTI ON IN THE CURRENT YEAR. SINCE THE EXPENSES OF CURRENT YEAR ARE ONLY ALLOWAB LE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT IN MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THE A.O. REJECTED THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED THE PRIOR PERI OD EXPENDITURE OF ` 5 59 747/-. 3.2 THE A.O. FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEND AT ` 6 54 388/- AND ALSO RECEIVED TAX FREE INTEREST FRO M KONKAN RAILWAY BOND OF ` 2 17 61 645/-. BOTH THE INCOME HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT FROM TAX. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSEE THE A.O. DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF ` 29 30 340/- U/S 14A OF THE ACT BEING INTEREST EXPE NDITURE FOR EARNING TAX FREE INCOME. 3.3 SIMILARLY THE A.O. ALSO DISALLOWED BAD DEBTS O F ` 13 58 475/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 ITA 391 /M/2010 M/ S PARLE PET PVT. LTD. 3.4 IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE GOT P ART RELIEF ONLY IN CASE OF BAD DEBTS WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED ` 2 49 513/- AND DELETED THE BALANCE AMOUNT. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUNDS RELATING TO TREATMENT OF THE COMPENSATION AS INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. THE GROUNDS RELATING TO DISAL LOWANCE OF ` 5 59 747/- ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AND THE ADDITION O F ` 2 49 513/- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WERE CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 3.5 IN THE MEANTIME THE A.O. INITIATED PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND LEVIED PENALTY OF ` 39 05 601/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS WHICH WERE UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A):- (A) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ` 53 18 142/- AT BUSINESS CENTRE. (B) DEPRECIATION ON PREMISES ` 18 38 952/- (C) PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES ` 5 59 747/- (D) DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A ` 29 20 340/- (E) BAD DEBTS ` 2 49 513/- TOTAL ` 1 08 86 694/- WHILE DOING SO THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE CLAIM OF THE EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE THE SAME AMOUNTS TO FURNISHING OF INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH EX PLANATIONS THERETO. THEREFORE IT IS PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA & ORS VS. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS & ORS. REPO RTED IN 306 ITR 277 THE A.O. LEVIED PENALTY OF ` 39 05 601/-. 4 ITA 391 /M/2010 M/ S PARLE PET PVT. LTD. 3.6 IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY S O LEVIED. WHILE DOING SO SHE NOTED THAT THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF I NCOME FROM BUSINESS CENTRE AS BUSINESS INCOME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED UNDER A DIFFERENT HEAD I.E. INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY. RELYING ON A COUPLE OF DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE SHE HELD THAT NO P ENALTY IS LEVIABLE WHEN THE HEAD OF INCOME AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CHANGE D BY THE A.O. RESULTING IN ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME. FURTHER IT WAS A CLE AR CASE OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE A.O. AS TO WHETHER THE INCOME WAS ASSESSABLE AS RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY OR AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALME NT OF INCOME AS THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE GENUINE EXPENSES AND THE SAME WERE NOT QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3.6 SO FAR AS THE ISSUE RELATING TO PENALTY ON PRIO R PERIOD EXPENSES THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE DETAILS OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPEN SES WERE MADE AVAILABLE IN THE COPY OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND TAX AUDIT REPORT. FURTHER IT WAS CLAIMED ON THE GROUND THAT LIABILITY TO INCUR THE SAME CRYSTAL LIZED DURING THE YEAR THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM WOULD NOT CALL FOR LEVY OF PENALTY AS THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FILING OF INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3.7 SO FAR AS PENALTY LEVIED IN ACCOUNT OF DISALLOW ANCE U/S 14A IS CONCERNED THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED AN EXPLANATION THAT THE INTEREST CLAIM RELATED TO DEBENTURES ISSUED IN A.Y. 2002-03 WHEREAS TAX FREE INVESTMENTS WERE OBTAINED SUBSEQUENTLY ON DE-MERGER . THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS NOR THERE WAS DEEMED CONCEALMENT UNDER EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C). 3.8 AS REGARDS THE PENALTY LEVIED ON DISALLOWANCE O F BAD DEBTS OF ` 2 49 513/- THE LD. CIT(A) CANCELLED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THE DETAILS 5 ITA 391 /M/2010 M/ S PARLE PET PVT. LTD. OF BAD DEBTS CLAIMED HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN OPERATIV E EXPENSES. THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED ON THE GROUND THAT THESE AMOUNTS DO N OT PERTAIN TO DEBTORS. HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE WOULD NOT JUSTIFY PENALTY U/ S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3.9 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) T HE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER H AND SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE OF ` 53 18 142/- AND DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS OF BUSINESS SERVICE CENTER OF ` 18 38 952/- AS A RESULT OF ASSESSING THE COMPENSATION UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY AS AGA INST BUSINESS INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMP ANY A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 69 TO 71 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPING MAINTAINING OPERATING BUYING AND SELLING LEASING AND LETTING OUT OF BUSINESS CENTRE OFFICE PREMISES APARTMENTS ETC. ARE ONE OF THE MAIN OBJECTIVES OF T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY. REFERRING TO A FEW DECISIONS FILED IN THE PAPER BOO K THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CASES OF BUSINESS CENTRES/M ALLS HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF VARIOUS ASSESSEES AS BUSINESS INCOME BY THE ITAT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AS AGAINST HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME TREATED B Y THE A.O. IT IS THE SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT IN CASE OF DEBATABLE ISSUES PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE NATURE OF BUSINES S HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER HE SUBMITTED THAT NO PENALTY WAS LEVIED ON SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. FOR A.Y. 2003-04 2005-06 AND 2006-07. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALTHOUGH THE A.O. HAS TREATED THE BUSINESS CENTRE INCOME AS INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THIS GROUND BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL THAT BY ITSELF WILL NOT 6 ITA 391 /M/2010 M/ S PARLE PET PVT. LTD. ATTRACT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. A CT. REFERRING TO A COUPLE OF DECISIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN NO PENALTY PROCEE DINGS WERE INITIATED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS ON SIMILAR ISSU E IT BECOMES A CASE OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT O F INCOME SO AS TO ATTRACT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5.1 SO FAR AS THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON PRIOR PERIOD E XPENSES IS CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE SAME IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS WELL AS TAX AUDIT REPORT. REFERRING T O A COUPLE OF DECISIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE U/S 271(1)(C) WHEN THE CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE BY WAY OF NOTE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME/TA X AUDIT REPORT. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO ADVANTAGE HAS ACCRUED TO THE ASSE SSEE BECAUSE OF SUCH CLAIM SINCE THE TAX RATES WERE SAME IN ALL THE YEAR S. RELYING ON A COUPLE OF DECISIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE TAX RATES ARE SAME PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. 5.2 SO FAR AS PENALTY LEVIED ON DISALLOWANCE U/S 14 A HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE IN A.Y. 2003-04 AND 2005-06. REFERRING TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RE WAS REDUCTION IN LOANS AND INCREASE IN OWNED FUNDS THEREFORE DISALLOWANC E IN THIS YEAR IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED. REFERRING TO A COUPLE OF DECISIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A. 5.3 SO FAR AS THE PENALTY LEVIED ON DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS IS CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT FULL PARTICULARS WERE GIVEN TO THE A .O. THEREFORE MERELY BECAUSE SOME AMOUNT HAS BEEN DISALLOWED THE SAME DOES NOT CALL FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CI T(A) HAS PASSED AN ELABORATE ORDER WHILE CANCELLING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A. O. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD A ND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 7 ITA 391 /M/2010 M/ S PARLE PET PVT. LTD. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AND THE CIT(A) AND T HE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED TH E VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. IN OUR OPINION THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTI FIED IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE IS SUE RELATING TO TREATMENT OF THE COMPENSATION AS BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE. ONE OF THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY AS SET OUT IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION IS LETTING OUT OF BUS INESS CENTRE OFFICE PREMISES APARTMENTS ETC. AS PER THE MOU THE ASSES SEE HAS TO PROVIDE VARIOUS FACILITIES AS SET OUT IN THE AGREEMENT SUCH AS ELEC TRICITY TELEPHONE SECRETARIAL SERVICE PROVIDING CHAIRS TABLES CABINET COMPUTE R AND XEROX MACHINE ETC. THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE MERELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN D ISALLOWED THE SAME IN OUR OPINION DO NOT CALL FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) ESPECIALLY WHEN FULL PARTICULARS WERE GIVEN. FURTHER NO PENALTY PROCEED INGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES IN THE PROCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2003-04 OR IN THE SUBSEQU ENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E A.Y. 2005-06. THEREFORE THE PENALTY SO LEVIED BY T HE A.O. IN THE IMPUGNED A.Y. AT BEST CAN BE TERMED AS DUE TO CHANGE OF OPINION. FURTHER THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A NUMBER OF CASES HAVE H ELD THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE DUE TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE MADE ON LY ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF HEAD OF INCOME AND WHEN THERE IS NO ALLEGATION ABOU T THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE. IT IS THE SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT FROM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSES SEE CAN ALWAYS ADVANCE FRESH ARGUMENTS WHILE ARGUING PENALTY MATTERS. SINC E THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FULL DETAILS OF THE VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAI MED BY IT AND SINCE THE ISSUE IS A DEBATABLE ONE AND SINCE NO PENALTY HAS BEEN LE VIED ON ACCOUNT OF SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES IN THE PRECEDING OR SUBSEQUENT ASSESS MENT YEARS THEREFORE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DE LETING THE PENALTY LEVIED ON 8 ITA 391 /M/2010 M/ S PARLE PET PVT. LTD. ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF ` 53 18 142/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF ` 18 38 952/- BY TREATING THE BUSINESS CENTRE INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 6.1 SO FAR AS THE ISSUE RELATING TO PRIOR PERIOD EX PENSES IS CONCERNED WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THAT FULL DISCLOSURE WERE MADE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND IN THE TAX AU DIT REPORT AND NO ADVANTAGE HAS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE TAX RATES ARE SAME IN ALL THE YEARS. THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELE TING THE PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES IS JUSTIFIED AND DOES NOT CAL L FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 6.2 AS REGARDS THE PENALTY LEVIED ON DISALLOWANCE U /S 14A WE FIND NO SUCH DISALLOWANCES U/S 14A WERE MADE DURING A.Y. 2003-04 AND 2005-06. FURTHER IT HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) ON ACCOUNT OF D ISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A. IN VIEW OF THE SAME AND IN VIEW OF OUR OBSERVATIONS WHILE DELETING THE PENALTY ON TREATING BUSINESS CENTRE INCOME AS INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE P ENALTY LEVIED U/S 14A. 6.3 SO FAR AS THE PENALTY LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF DI SALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS IS CONCERNED WE FIND THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL BAD DEBTS DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. AT ` 13 58 475/- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED AN AMOUNT OF ` 2 49 513/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME DID NOT PERTAIN TO DEBTORS AS SUCH AMOUNT WAS NOT TREATED AS INCOME IN THE EARLIER YEAR. HOWEVER TH E FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN FULL PARTICULARS OF SUCH CLAIM. THEREFORE MERELY BECAUSE THE BAD DEBT WAS DISALLOWED THE SAME IN OUR OPINION UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DOES NOT CALL FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT CANNOT BE TERMED AS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICU LARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE OF PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. IN THI S VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED DISCUSSION BY THE LD. CIT(A) WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION 9 ITA 391 /M/2010 M/ S PARLE PET PVT. LTD. THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. W E THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20.7.2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 20.7.2011. RK COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 17 MUMBAI 4. THE CIT - 8 MUMBAI 5. THE DR BENCH C 6. MASTER FILE // TUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI 10 ITA 391 /M/2010 M/ S PARLE PET PVT. LTD. DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 11.7.2011 14.7.11 SR. PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR 12.7.2011 14.7.11 SR. PS 3 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS SR. PS 5 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. PS 6 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR. PS 7 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER