, Û `'
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI
[^ . , Ú¢ Û] ãá, ¢
BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND
SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
./I.T.A. Nos. 330 & 331/Mum/2013
( [ [ / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-190
The DCIT-10(1), / M/s. Maharashtra State
Aayakar Bhavan, Electricity Distribution Co.
Mumbai-400 020 Ltd.,
Prakashgad, A.K. Marg,
. / . / PAN/GIR No. : AAECM 2933K
( /Appellant) .. (× / Respondent)
/ Appellant by: Shri S.J. Singh
Shri K.K. Ved
/ Date of Hearing :12.03.2015
/Date of Pronouncement :18.03.2015
/ O R D E R
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:
These two appeals by the Revenue are directed against two
separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-21, Mumbai pertaining to assessment
years2007-08 and 2009-10. Both these appeals were heard together and
dispose of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
2 ITA No. 330 & 331/M/2013
ITA No. 330/M/2013- A.Y. 2007-08
2. The sole grievance of the Revenue 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 explanation of the assessee did not find
any favour from the AO who disallowed Rs. 1351.62 crores u/s. 40(a)(ia)
of the Act.
4. The matter travelled upto the Tribunal. The Tribunal in ITA No.
2276/M/2011 and 2405/M/2011 deleted the addition made u/s. 40(a)(ia)
of the Act therefore to this extent, we do not find any error in the findings
of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has correctly held that no penalty
can be levied as the quantum additions have been deleted by the Tribunal.
4.1. Proceeding further, during the course of the assessment
proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has claimed Rs.
1,15,07,000/- as Revenue expenditure on account of meter equipment.
The assessee was asked to explain as to why the excess claim of
3 ITA No. 330 & 331/M/2013
expenditure as pointed out by the CAG in his report should not be
disallowed. The assessee explained that necessary rectification entries
have been passed in the subsequent years therefore no disallowance
should be made. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has been
initiated by the AO.