2016 (9) TMI 1490

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 8,80,00,000/- by holding that the assessee has debited the amount of Rs. 26,14,06,249/- from the total income due to bona fide intention.   2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that penalty is not leviable because in the instant case the addition on account of false claim was confirmed by the appellate authority.   3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee has not made any false claim by deducting the amount not paid by the assessee in respect of the power purchase." 2. Though the revenue has raised three grounds of appeal but they relate to single issue of deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e to the extent of Rs. 261406249/- being the difference between the purchase price of electricity bill by UPPCL and the purchase price debited to the profit and loss account by the appellant at rates worked out by UPERC is allowable expenditure in AY 2007-08. Meanwhile, the ld Assessing Officer levied penalty on this amount vide order dated 29.03.2012 of Rs. 8.80 crores holding that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 261406289/- by making a false claim of deduction which was apparently, patently, and clearly not allowable. Aggrieved by this order the assessee preferred appeal before the ld CIT(A) who deleted the penalty relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate authorities up to the Tribunal. However, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has admitted the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 25.07.2012 in ITA No. 68 of 2009 wherein following questions of law are admitted:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in declining to allow deduction in respect of the differential rate of power purchase (i.e. difference between the rate at which the bills were raised by the UP State Electricity Board/ UP Power Corporation Ltd. and the rates as determined/ recommended by the independent authority?. 2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in declining to consider the claim of the a....