9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law in the case of the assessee on disallowance of ₹ 261406249/- for power purchase price difference, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied. We are of the view that consistent approach should have been taken by revenue in this case for this year too. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT]] has stated that a mere making of the claim which is not sustainable in law by itself does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee and does not invite penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - In the present case also the assessee has disclosed full facts about the claim made in the computation of total income filed. Further, detailed explanation abou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee has not made any false claim by deducting the amount not paid by the assessee in respect of the power purchase. 2. Though the revenue has raised three grounds of appeal but they relate to single issue of deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Brief facts of case are that appellant is a company engaged in business of distribution of power in greater Noida Area. For above assessment year assessee filed its return of income declaring loss of ₹ 176961703/- and book profit u/s 115JB of ₹ 60065825/-. Subsequently, return was revised on 31.03.2009 declaring loss of ₹ 176581620/- and book profit of ₹ 60068535/-. In assessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of ₹ 261406289/- by making a false claim of deduction which was apparently, patently, and clearly not allowable. Aggrieved by this order the assessee preferred appeal before the ld CIT(A) who deleted the penalty relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd and further holding that the disallowance is a purely legal and debatable issue. He further held that in assessee s own case for earlier years the claim of the deduction of the assessee is allowed by tribunal and in earlier years when the addition is upheld . AO himself have dropped the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) for Ay 2003-04. Therefore, by order of the ld CIT(A) rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchase (i.e. difference between the rate at which the bills were raised by the UP State Electricity Board/ UP Power Corporation Ltd. and the rates as determined/ recommended by the independent authority?. 2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in declining to consider the claim of the appellant (assessee) for exclusion of the amount re-payable to customers as per the minimum consumption guarantee scheme?. 7. Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of Cit Vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Company in ITA No. 240 of 2009 wherein, it is held that the appeal is admitted and substantial question of law is framed by Hon ble High Court u/s 260A of the Act it shows that the issue is debatable a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isclosed full facts about the claim made in the computation of total income filed. Further, detailed explanation about the power purchase price was given in notes to accounts in Schedule 16 of its annual account. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its claim. It also cannot be said that the claim of the assessee is not a bona fied claim because of the past history of such claim being allowed to the assessee by the tribunal. In view of the above facts we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the penalty of ₹ 8.80 crores u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. In the result appeal of the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A) is dismissed. Order pronounced i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
