TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 402
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied by the AO amounting to Rs. 455. 34 crores u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 1351.62 crores to M/s. Power Grid Corpn. Of India Ltd. and M/s. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. for use of their electricity transmission network, pursuant to a Bulk Power Transmission agreement executed between the parties. The assessee was asked to explain as to whether any tax has been deducted at source on such payment. It was explained that the assessee was not liable to deduct any tax at source. The expla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the notice that the assessee instead of capitalizing the expenditure incurred on cost of new meters claimed the same as revenue therefore there was overstatement of revenue expenditure . The AO was convinced that the assessee has claimed a wrong expenditure, therefore, liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO accordingly levied the penalty. 5. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its claim relying upon the decision of the Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT in Civil Appeal No. 6924/2012. After considering the facts and the submissions, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in the case of Cement Marketing Co. 124 ITR 15. 9. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. Let us first see the conduct of the assessee. The assessment order made u/s. 143(3) of the Act is dt. 31.12.2009. The return was filed on 30.10.2007. The CAG report is dt. 17.5.2008. This means that on 17.5.2008 the assessee was well aware of the qualified remarks made by the CAG in so far as the claim of expenditure as revenue expenditure in respect of meter equipment is concerned. The assessee did not care to revise its return. Not only the assessee did not file any revised return of income but the assessee at the same time contested the disallowance made by the AO in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,95,16,000/- on account of under statement of Revenue. 14. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue raised by the Revenue has been decided by the Tribunal in earlier assessment years in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed the order of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 in ITA Nos. 2276 , 2405, 7539 & 8572/M/2011. 15. The Ld. Departmental Representative pointed out that the facts are totally different and therefore the issues cannot be taken as covered in favour of the assessee. 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee rebutting to the statement made by the Ld. DR,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2007-08 are that from the audit of the assessee by the CAG u/s. 619(4) of the Companies Act, it was noted that the assessee did not recognize the unbilled revenue (revenue for energy supplied and bills not issued till March, 2007) to the extent of Rs. 36.95 crores resulted in the understatement of revenue, which was added to the income of the assessee." Thus it can be seen that the facts before the Tribunal in earlier assessment years were totally different from the facts of the year under consideration as mentioned hereinabove. 17.3 It appears that the First Appellate authority has been simply carried away by the submissions made by the assessee that the issue is covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal. It is clear that the Ld....