2019 (9) TMI 187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....volved, we are proceeding to dispose them off through a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Facts being identical, we begin with the AY 2003-04. 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the revenue read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 12,30,38,547/- u/s 271(1)(c). 1a. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the penalty has been levied by the AO on the quantum of disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that in view of the section 271(1)(c) of the Act where the word 'del....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2,00,25,714/-], and consortium leadership fees [Rs. 1,01,56,514/-], paid to Hochtief Ag. 3. Addition of commercial management fees [Rs. 2,03,12,027/-], commercial management fees upto 31.03.2002 [Rs. 2,00,25,715/-] paid to Larsen & Toubro Limited 4. Reimbursement of head office expenditure Rs. 1,01,56,514/- & Rs. 1,00,12,857/-(upto 31.03.2002) paid to Hochtief Ag and Rs. 9,14,08,622/- & Rs. 9,01,15,715/- (upto 31.03.2002) paid to Larsen & Toubro Limited 5. Undervaluation of Closing Stock of Tools Rs. 97,74,485/- 6. Undervaluation of closing stock of spares Rs. 20,547,323/- 7. Addition on account of temporary structures Rs. 9,600,953/- 8. Penalty and interest for default in TDS of Rs. 4,9....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n claimed @ 100% and disallowed in part. On merits the appellant had submitted a bona fide explanation as to the deductions claimed by it though not accepted by the Assessing Officer. Penalty cannot be levied on the additions made on account of differing opinion. The mere rejection of an explanation does not lead to a conclusion that the explanation was false. In the penalty order the Assessing Officer has not been able to establish that the explanation given by the appellant was not bona fide. Mere difference of opinion where a debatable issue exists does not justify levy of penalty. A difference in interpretation of facts and law cannot be said to amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Claims preferred by an appellant s....