2015 (3) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the I.T. Act. The ld. CIT(A), Kota erred in partially maintaining the penalty of Rs. 3,62,466/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the penalty of Rs. 3,62,466/- imposed u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act should be set aside.'' 3.0 The Revenue in its appeal has raised the following grounds. ''On the facts and circumstances of the case, the has erred in:- (i) deleting penalty of Rs. 8,65,29,719/- imposed u/s 271(1) (c ) of the Act on the addition of Rs. 23,54,55,017/- on account of downward impact of retention price subsidy. (ii) deleting penalty of Rs. 15,23,33,187/- imposed u/s 271(1) (c ) of the Act on the addition of Rs. 41,45,12,073/- on account of wrong deduction u/s 80IA in respect of Captive Power Plant. (iii) de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The facts and circumstances of this issue are same with the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2002-03, following the same and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158, we delete the penalty allowing the solitary ground raised by the assessee. 6.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the Revenue qua penalty in respect of downward impact of retention price subsidy. The ld. DR is heard. 6.2 The ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the quantum addition has been deleted by this Bench of ITAT for the assessment year 2003-04 vide its order dated 28-07-2011, which has been followed by ld. CIT(A) vide order d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T(A) the claim of deduction u/s 80IA was found that ITAT out miscellaneous income to the extent of Rs. 3,94,45,923/- was retained. While dealing with the issue of penalty these additions were not adjudicated in the appeal. Before ld. CIT(A), it was pleaded that no inaccurate particulars of income were furnished in the return of income. All the details regarding claim u/s 80IA were produced before the lower authorities and the issue emanated from its return only. The issue of eligibility of miscellaneous income while computing deduction u/s 80IA was vexed one and after a prolonged litigation was settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The ld. CIT(A), in view thereof deleted the penalty by following observations ''The Hon'ble Supreme Cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8.5 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. Apropos the issues of Ground No. (i) and (ii) in respect of downward impact of retention of price subsidy and 80IA in respect of Captive Power Plant, the quantum additions have been deleted by this Bench of ITAT for the assessment year 2003-04. Since quantum additions were deleted, we see no reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus Ground No. (i) and (ii) of the Revenue are dismissed. 9.1 Apropos Ground No. (iii) of the Revenue, we find merit in the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. The Max Data judgment as pleaded by the ld. DR is applicable to the voluntary admission of an income by the assessee before the AO. The facts in ....