9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty of Rs. 8,80,00,000/- by holding that the assessee has debited the amount of Rs. 26,14,06,249/- from the total income due to bona fide intention. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that penalty is not leviable because in the instant case the addition on account of false claim was confirmed by the appellate authority. 3. The CIT(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 compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purchase price of electricity bill by UPPCL and the purchase price debited to the profit and loss account by the appellant at rates worked out by UPERC is allowable expenditure in AY 2007-08. Meanwhile, the ld Assessing Officer levied penalty on this amount vide order dated 29.03.2012 of Rs. 8.80 crores holding that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 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 disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt has admitted the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 25.07.2012 in ITA No. 68 of 2009 wherein following questions of law are admitted:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in declining to allow deduction in respect of the differential rate of power purchase (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 mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance Petro Products Ltd 322 ITR 158 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) of the Act. 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
