TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ience, we are adjudicating all the five appeals in this common and consolidated order. Appeal wise and ground wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs. 2. The issues involved in all the five appeals are same, therefore, firstly we shall take up ITA No.320/M/2011 for the assessment year 2008-2009 and the grounds raised in this appeal read as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income by making claim of deduction u/s 80-IA knowing that he was only a contractor executing the work and was not owner of the facility and hence neither designing nor conceivin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-. In the process, AO disallowed the claim of the assessee on the basis of retrospective amendment made u/s 80-IA vide Finance Act, 2007 and, further, by relying on the order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of M/s. B.T. Patil & Sons Constructions for the proposition that the claim of benefit u/s 80-IA of the Act is inapplicable to 'works contract awarded by any person and executed by the undertaking or enterprise...'. Assessee accepted the disallowance made by the AO and not filed any appeal. But, the AO imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- u/s 271(1)(c), which was 100% of the minimum imposable penalty, on the ground that the assessee has deliberately concealed / furnished in accurate particulars of his income. Aggrieved, the assessee is in ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e subsection 4 of the section 80-IA of Income Tax Act, also indicate that there was a need for such clarificatory amendments to remove any misconceptions in claiming and arriving at the deductions eligible under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. Having regard to these factual and legal aspects of the case, I consider that there is a merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. The detailed written submissions made in support of the grounds of appeal have further supported the grounds of appeal and the stand of the appellant that the claims of deduction made under section 80-IA of the Act do not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as intended u/s section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....323) has allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA on similar facts. After the said judgment, the various Benches of the Hon'ble Tribunal have allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act. For your Honours ready reference, a few of the decisions are mentioned below: 1. Pratibha Industries vs. ACIT for AYs. 2000-2001 to 2005-2006 in ITA Nos. 2197 to 2202/Mum/2008 dated 19.4.2012. 2. Om metals Infraprojects Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT for AY. 2007-2008 in ITA No. 911/JP/2010 dated 5.8.2011 3. GVPR Engineering vs. ACIT for AYs. 2004-2005 to 2008-2009 in ITA Nos. 1482 to 1485/Hyd/2011 dated 29.2.2012. 4. Laxmi Civil Engg. P. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT for AYs. 2003-04 to 2006-2007 in ITa Nos. 766 & 254/PN/08, 431 & 435/PN/07 dated 8.6.2011. In f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no particulars have been concealed by the appellant. Further, the claim of the appellant is allowable even on merits on the basis of a the above decisions. It can be concluded that the issue is a highly debatable issue and the assessee has neither furnished inaccurate particulars nor concealed any income and hence, no penalty can be levied u/s 271(1) of the Act." 6. On the other hand, Ld DR dutifully relied on the order of the AO. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the decisions relied upon by the Ld Representatives of both the parties. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee company is under a bona fide belief that it is eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act and the same ....