ACIT, Circle, Panchkula V. M/s Gymkhana Club, Panchkula

ITA 1009/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0645 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUKHI; ABHAY SETHI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Tax effect; TDS
• Section: 271(1)(c); 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A , CHANDIGARH , ! ' #$ % & ' ($ , ! BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1009/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE A.C.I.T., PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA. M//S GYM KHANA CLUB, SECTOR-06, PANCHKULA. ./PAN NO: AAAAG0115B /ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI S.K.MUKHI, ADV. & ABHAY SETHI, ADV. / REVENUE BY : SMT.CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR ! /DATE OF HEARING : 19.02.2019 '#$% ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.03.2019 /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA (IN SHORT CIT(A) DATED 22.5. 2018 DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). 2. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLUB HAD CLAIMED ITS INCOME EXEMPT U/S 4 O F THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF MUTUALITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT, REJECTING THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE BY TREATING THE SURPLUS GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE TO T HE TUNE OF RS.90,22,232/- AS THE INCOME THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1009/CHD/2018 A.Y.2012-13 2 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND PENALTY OF RS.25,58,669/- LEVIED. 3. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO NOTED THAT THE I.T.A.T. IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y 2004-05 HAD ALLOWED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF MUTUAL ITY APPLIED TO SURPLUS RECEIVED AS CONTRIBUTIONS OR PRI CE FOR FACILITIES AVAILED BY ITS MEMBERS, WHILE THE AM OUNT OF INTEREST EARNED FROM FIXED DEPOSIT WOULD NOT FAL L WITHIN THE AMBIT OF MUTUALITY AND HAD HELD THE SAME TO BE TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY O F SURPLUS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN BY THE ASSESS EE SINCE IT HAD BEEN ALLOWED THIS CLAIM IN EARLIER YEA RS AND NOTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL PARTICUL ARS RELATING TO ITS INCOME, HELD, THEREFORE, THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, PENA LTY LEVIED WAS DELETED. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AT PARAS 5 TO 5.1 OF HER ORDER ARE AS UND ER: 5. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF GYMKHANA CLUB, SECTOR-3, PANCHKULA FOR THE A.Y. 200 4- 05 ITA NO/777/CHD/2007 DATED 26.09.2017. THE HON'BL E ITAT'S FINDING IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- '22. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION OF THE MATTER, IT IS HELD THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENE FIT OF THE DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY IN RESPECT OF THE SURPLUS ITA NO.1009/CHD/2018 A.Y.2012-13 3 AMOUNT RECEIVED AS CONTRIBUTIONS OR PRICE FOR SOME OF THE FACILITIES AVAILED BY ITS MEMBERS. HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FIXED DEPOSITS IN BANKS WILL NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE MUTUALITY PRINCIPLE AND WILL THEREFORE, BE EXIGIBLE TO INCOME TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE CLUB. 23. OUR ABOVE DECISION WILL APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS TO ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ' 5.1 THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT , THE APPELLANT WAS HELD ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER THE DOCT RINE OF MUTUALITY AND THE SURPLUS OUT OF RECEIPTS FROM M EMBERS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER THE CONCEPT O F MUTUALITY. I AM ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION THAT ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS RECEI PTS AND INTEREST INCOME ON BANK DEPOSITS IN CASE OF CLUBS W AS A DISPUTABLE ISSUE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN BY T HE APPELLANT AND AS PARTICULARS OF THE SURPLUS RECEIPTS AND INTER EST EARNED WERE AVAILABLE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND ACCOUNTS FILE D WITH RETURN OF INCOME, THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE HELD LIABL E FOR PENALTY FOR RILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALMENT OF ITS INCOME IN VIEW OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ARISUDANA SPINNING MILLS LTD. (S UPRA). THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IS ALSO APPLICA BLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF APPELLANT AS EVEN REGARDIN G DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS U/S 43B ON ACCOUNT OF ENTERTAINMENT TAX & SALES TAX PAYABLE AND NON DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYER SHA RE OF PF AND DISALLOWANCE U/S 36 ON LATE DEPOSIT OF TDS/EPF/ES I ETC., IT IS OBSERVED THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE DISALLOWED BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF AS NOTED BY AO IN ASSESSMENT ORDER B UT THEN CLAIMED AS EXEMPT ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT'S IN COME IS EXEMPT BEING A MUTUAL CONCERN. THUS ALL THE PARTICULA RS OF THE CLAIMS DISALLOWED WERE BEFORE THE AO AND THE APPELL ANT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE LIABLE FOR FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AS THE ISSUE WAS DEBATABL E. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ABOVE D ISCUSSION THE PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) IMPOSED ON THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON SUCH ADDITIONS IN A.Y. 2012-13 WOULD NOT S TAND AND HENCE, IS CANCELLED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLO WED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. DR CONCEDED THAT THE I.T.A.T. HAD ,IN THE PRECEDING YEARS, UPHELD THE TAXABILITY OF O NLY INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON FDRS, WHI LE THE REST HAD BEEN HELD TO BE EXEMPT ON THE PRINCIPL E OF MUTUALITY. HE, THEREFORE CONCEDED THAT THE PENALTY, IF ITA NO.1009/CHD/2018 A.Y.2012-13 4 ANY, WAS LEVIABLE ONLY ON THE PORTION HELD EXIGIBLE TO TAX BY THE I.T.A.T. THE LD. DR FURTHER STATED THAT THE I.T.A.T. HAD FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S BANGALORE CLUB VS. CIT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.174/2007 DATED 14.1.2013 IN THIS REGARD AND THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS THE LAW OF THE LAND AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HAD MADE A CLAIM WHICH WAS PATENTLY NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER LAW. THE LD. DR CONTENDED, THEREFORE, THAT THE PENALTY ON THE BALAN CE AMOUNT HAD BEEN RIGHTLY LEVIED. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON ON HIS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) POINTING OUT THEREFROM THAT AT THE TIME O F FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR I. E. ON 28.9.2012 THIS ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF ITS INCOME HA D BEEN DECIDED BY THE I.T.A.T. IN ITS OWN CASE ,RIGHT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 ONWARDS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.778/CHD/2007 DATED 29.1.2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.41 TO 57 . IT WAS POINTED OUT THEREFROM THAT THE I.T.A.T. HAD NOTED THE FACT OF ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y 1995-96 IN ITA NO.900/CHD/2000 , AND AGAIN IN ITA NO.361 TO 364/CHD/2003, AND IN A.Y 1998-99 IN ITA NO.514/CHD/02 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING ITA NO.1009/CHD/2018 A.Y.2012-13 5 THAT THE INTEREST INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CL UB WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX. RELEVANT PARAGRAPH 8 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND CAREF UL GONE THOUGHT THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT ICED THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 THE ISSUE HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DA TED 10.12.2004 IN I.T.A NO. 900/CHANDI/2000. THE SAID O RDER WAS FOLLOWED IN I.T. AS NO. 361 TO 364/CHANDI/2003 VIDE ORDER DATEC 5.9.2005 (SUPRA) AND THE AFORESAID TWO ORDERS I.E. THE ORDER DATED I.E. THE ORDER DATED 21.1 0.2005 AND 5.9.2005 WERE FOLLOWED IN I.T.A NO. 514/CHANDI/2 002 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ORDER DATED 21.10.2005. WE THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT FINDI NG GIVEN IN PARAS NO. 7 TO 9 ORDER DATED 10.12.2004 IN I.T.A NO . 900/CHANDI/2000 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 'WE HAVE GIVEN OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIV AL CONTENTIONS. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BEFORE US THAT MAIN OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO AFFORD TO ITS MEMBER T HE USUAL PRIVILEGES AND ADVANTAGES OF A CLUB SOCIETY. THE REVEN UE HAS NOT ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DERIVED FROM PROVIDING FACILITIES TO IT'S MEMBERS. THE INCOME WHICH WAS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED, WAS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M OUTSIDE SOURCES. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS AS TO WHETH ER THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF INTERES T ON FDRS, GUEST CHARGES AND OTHER LTD. (SUPRA) THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT OF INCOME DERIVED F ROM LETTING OUT OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY TO NON MEMBER AND EARNING OF INTEREST ON FDR AND NSC ETC. WAS LEFT WIDE OPEN. IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT THE DECISION OF THE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BANKIPUR ( SUPRA) IS INAPPLICABL E FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEALS OF THE REVEN UE. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMSFORD CLUB (SUPRA) IS ALSO OF NO HELP AS IN THA T CASE OF CHEMSFORD CLUB TO THE ASSESSMENT OF ANNUAL VALUE OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CLUB AND THE INCOME DERIVED THERE FROM THE MEMBERS. THERE ARE SOME DECISIONS REFERRED TO BLOW WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN LAID D OWN THAT THE INCOME OF THE CLUB IS TAX ABLE ON THE PROFIT DE RIVED FROM SUBSCRIPTION AND CHARGES PAID BY NON-MEMBERS A ND ON THE INCOME DERIVED FROM ITS CAPITAL ASSETS AND INVESTMENTS;- I. UNITED SERVICE CLUB VS. CIT, 1 ITC 113; II. S PORTS CLUB OF GUJARAT VS. CIT, 171 ITR 504 (GUJ); III. CUTTACK CLUB PVT LTD VS. CIT, 196 ITR 407 (ORISS A); IV. RAJPATH CLUB LTD VS. CIT , 211 ITR 379 (GUJ); ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE DECISIONS THE ISSUE COULD BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. HOWEVER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIEF UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, ITA NO.1009/CHD/2018 A.Y.2012-13 6 CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT HARYANA, ROHTAK VS. SIRHIND CLUB LTD. AMBALA ITA NO. 451/CHANDI/84 ASSESSMENT YEAR 82-83 ORDER DATED 20.09.1985 WHEREI N THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE RELATING TO ASSESSME NT OF INTEREST ON FDR IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DECI SION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTED OF INC OME- TAX VS. ALL INDIA ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE WELFARE SOCIETY, (2003) 130 TAXMAN 575 (DELHI) THE ALSO SUPPORTS THE VIEW CANVASSED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF OUR CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT, HARYANA, ROHTAK V S. SIRHIND CLUB LTD. AMBALA (SUPRA), HOLD THAT THE INTE REST INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CLUB WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX AND THAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THUS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 4 OF THE ACT WAS A BONAFIDE CLAIM BAS ED ON THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. IN ITS OWN CASE IN PRECEDING YEARS AND THAT IT WAS ONLY SUBSEQUENTLY T HAT THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAD HELD THAT INTEREST EARN ED ON FDRS BY CLUBS WOULD NOT BE EXEMPT UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE CL UB VS CIT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.124 OF 2007 DATED 14.1.20 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, STATED THA T THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BE SAID TO HAVE FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. ARISUDANA SPINNING MILLS LTD. (2010) 326 ITR 42 9 POINTING OUT THEREFROM THAT THE HON'BLE COURT HAD H ELD THAT THE ISSUE BEING DEBATABLE AND LAW HAVING BEEN SETTLED BY A SUBSEQUENT RULING OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITA NO.1009/CHD/2018 A.Y.2012-13 7 INCOME COULD BE SAID TO HAVE OCCURRED AND NO PENALT Y THEREFORE COULD BE LEVIED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSE SSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HA D FURNISHED ALL PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND IT WAS ONLY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DENIED, WHICH CLAIM WAS A BONAFIDE CLAIM AND, THEREFORE, NO PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 322 ITR 158. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE REVENUE ,I N THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT, ON THE ADDIT ION MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF ITS SURPLUS EARNED DENYING ITS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE ACT ON THE PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY. 8. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT IDENTICAL ADDITION S HAD BEEN MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN PRECEDING YEARS ALSO ,RIGHT FROM A.Y 1995-96 TO A. Y 2004-05 AND A.Y 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2010-11, WHEREIN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF EXEMPTION OF I TS ENTIRE INCOME HAD BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ITAT VIDE DIFFERENT ORDERS PASSED. THAT ON APPEAL FILED BY TH E REVENUE AGAINST THESE ORDERS OF THE ITAT TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THE MATTER HAD BEEN REMANDED BACK TO THE ITAT TO BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR APPLICABILITY OF THE PRINC IPLE ITA NO.1009/CHD/2018 A.Y.2012-13 8 OF MUTUALITY BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE CLUB (SUPRA).THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE ITAT DECIDED THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO A.Y 2001-02, 2003- 04,2004-05,2006-07 & 2010-11 PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO T HE BENEFIT OF THE DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY IN RESPECT OF THE SURPLUS AMOUNT RECEIVED AS CONTRIBUTION OR PRICE FO R SOME OF THE FACILITIES AVAILED BY ITS MEMBERS, BUT THE INTEREST EARNED FROM FIXED DEPOSITS IN THE BANKS WOULD FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF MUTUALITY AND WOULD THEREFORE BE EXIGIBLE TO TAX. THE REST OF THE APPEA LS OF THE REVENUE WERE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF THE TAX EFFECT BEING BELOW THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR FILING APPEALS TO THE ITAT BY THE CBDT. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER THE DOCTRI NE OF MUTUALITY, ON SURPLUS GENERATED FROM RECEIPTS FR OM MEMBERS AND NO PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE THEREFORE ON ADDITION MADE OF THE SAME. THE LD.CIT(A), WE HOLD, HAD RIGHTLY DELETED PENALTY LEVIED ON THE SAME. 10. AS FOR PENALTY ON THE BALANCE ADDITION PERTAINI NG TO INTEREST EARNED ON FDRS FROM BANK, AS IS EVIDEN T FROM THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALL ALONG BEEN ALLOWED EXEMPTION OF THE SAME ALSO BY TH E ITAT, IN THE FIRST ROUND BEFORE IT, AND AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR I.E. ON 28.09.2 012, THERE WERE DECISIONS OF THE ITAT IN FAVOUR OF THE ITA NO.1009/CHD/2018 A.Y.2012-13 9 ASSESSEE IN APPEALS RELATING TO A.Y 1995-96 TO 2001 - 02 AND 2004-05 ,2006-07 AND 2007-08. THEREFORE, W E AGREE WITH THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS BONAFIDE BASED ON THE FACT THAT IDENTICAL CLAIM HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO IT BY HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORIT IES IN PRECEDING YEARS. CONSIDERING THE SAME, WE HOLD T HAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CA NNOT BE HELD LIABLE TO HAVE FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME EVEN VIS--VIS THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON FDRS. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF TH E LD.CIT(A) DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED IN ENTIRETY I N THE PRESENT CASE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS, TH EREFORE, DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- % & ' ($ (SANJAY GARG ) ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER )* ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , % /DATED: 27 TH MARCH, 2019 * $ * #&' ()*) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. + / THE APPELLANT 2. ',+ / THE RESPONDENT 3. - / CIT 4. - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. )./' 0 , !0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35 / GUARD FILE #& / BY ORDERP, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR