TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act"). 2. Facts for both years lie in the same compass. Assessee had taken windmills on lease from its associated companies engaged in manufacturing. The companies from which assessee had leased the windmills had acquired the windmills and leased it out to the assessee. As per the assessee, it was the first user of the windmills and though it was holding the windmills under a lease, it was eligible for claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act with regard to the profits earned on supply of electricity generated by such windmills. Assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act for both the years. Similar claims were there from assessment year 1994-95 onwards. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that lease of the wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee that there was no concealment nor furnishing of any inaccurate or false particulars. As per the assessee, the claim for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act was supported by Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD and audit report in Form 10CCB as prescribed under Section 80-IA of the Act. Assessee pointed out that ld. CIT(Appeals) in quantum proceedings accepted the case of the assessee that it was eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in respect of its income from generation and distribution of electricity. Assessee also pointed out that it had disclosed full and proper particulars with regard to its claim and it was not a fictitious claim. However, the A.O. was not appreciative of this argument. According to him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 53A of Transfer of Property Act by the lease. Ld. CIT(Appeals) was appreciative of these contentions. According to him, decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158) and that of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Nath Brothers (288 ITR 670) went in favour of assessee. He, therefore, deleted the levy of penalty for both the years. 5. Now before us, learned D.R. submitted that assessee had made a false claim and was trying to justify such claim stating that the claim was legal. According to learned D.R., assessee was well aware that it was not eligible for claim since the machinery was put to use earlier. According to learned D.R., ld. CIT(Appeals) had erred in deleting the pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owever, these reasonings were not found acceptable by the ld. CIT(Appeals). No doubt, the Tribunal had reversed the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and reinstated the orders of A.O. in quantum assessments. Appeals against such orders of the Tribunal have been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court. This by itself, in our opinion, shows that the claim of the assessee was bonafide. The claim was supported by Form No. 10CCB. Assessee had not concealed any particulars in its returns. The lease was not doubted but the lease itself was considered to be a transfer. The lease transaction by itself was also considered to be a first use of the machinery. All these are debatable issues without doubt. In such circumstances, to say that the claim itself was malaf....