TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ff by way of this consolidated order. 2. However, in order to understand the implication, it would be necessary to take note of the facts of one appeal. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal in ITA no. 331/Mum./2011, for the assessment year 2008-09. The amounts of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for each assessment year are in the following manner:- Amount of penalty imposed Year of Assessment 27,50,000 2003-04 38,50,000 2004-05 22,00,000 2005-06 8,00,000 2006-07 17,000 2007-08 17,000 2008-09 3. Facts in brief:- The assessee is an AoP (Association of Persons) which was predominantly formed for strengthening the Tansa Dam. It was awarded the projects from Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (MCBM). The income earned from the said projects were claimed by the assessee as deduction under sub-clause (4) OF SECTION 80IA, which provides that any enterprise carrying on the business of developing or operating and maintaining any infrastructure facilities is eligible for deduction. The amount of deduction claimed by the assessee in the return of income for the captioned assessment years are in the following manner:- De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther, the assessee has not preferred any appeal only to buy peace against such disallowance. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held for concealing any particulars of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars as it was a legal claim based on certain decisions and at the time of filing of the return of income and retrospective amendment come only subsequently. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's explanation and confirmed the penalty on such a disallowance. 6. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the detailed explanation and submissions of the assessee and various case laws which has been discussed from Pages-5 to 16, deleted the penalty after observing and holding as under:- "I have carefully examined the facts of the case, the reasons stated in the assessment orders for disallowing the claims made u/s 801A of the I T act, the reasons stated by the appellant for accepting the decision of the A.O. with regard to the disallowance of the claims u/s 80 IA of the I T Act, the stand taken by the assessing officer in the penalty and various contentions raised by the learned authorised representative of the appellant in the written submissions filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of all the assessment years." 7. Before us, the learned Counsel submitted that similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the group concern of the assessee in DCIT v/s M/s. Unity Chopra and DCIT v/s Thakur Mhatre Unity Joint Venture, wherein the Tribunal has affirmed the deletion of penalty on the same set of facts and issues involved. The copy of the orders were filed before us. 8. The learned Departmental Representative though agreed that the similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in other group concerned, however, he relied upon the findings of the Assessing Officer as discussed in the penalty order. 9. After carefully considering the rival contentions, perusing the relevant findings of the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal orders in other group concerns, we find that similar issue has been dealt by the Tribunal in similar set of facts in the going case of the assessee and has affirmed the deletion of the penalty. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant findings of the decision in Thakur Mhatre Unity Joint Venture (supra) is reproduced hereunder:- "6. After going through the decision of the Tribunal,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Apex Court has considered the decision of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 227). In the present case, on interpretation of section 80-IA the assessee took a view that he is a developer and claimed deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act. From the above decision, it is settled law that if the appellant makes a claim under a bona-fide belief then it will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. It needs specific mention that the appellant has taken a legal view and 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." 7. The Tribunal, based on the aforesaid submissions so made by the learned Counsel, deleted the penalty after observing and holding as under:- "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....