DCIT, Parwanoo V. M/s Sansui Electronics, Solan

ITA 1033/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8893 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PUNEET GUPTA
• Keywords: Difference of opinion

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA NO. 1031/CHD./2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010-11 ITA NO. 1032/CHD./2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2011-12 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL, PARWANOO VS M/S VANSER METALICS, PLOT NO. 97-98, HPSIDC, INDUSTRIAL . AREA, BADDI, DISTT. SOLAN (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAEFV7622H ITA NO. 1033/CHD./2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010-11 ITA NO. 1034/CHD./2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2011-12 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL, PARWANOO VS M/S SANSUI ELECTRONICS, PLOT NO. 10, SECTOR-1, PARWANOO, DISTT. SOLAN (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAXFS7773F ASSESSEE BY : SH. PUNEET GUPTA, AR REVENUE BY : SH. MANJ IT SINGH, SR. DR ITA NO. 1035/CHD./2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010-11 ITA NO. 1036/CHD./2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2011-12 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL, PARWANOO VS M/S CUTTING EDGE TECHNOLOGIES, 175/1 & 181, JUDDI KALAN, VILL. BADDI BAROTIWALA, LINK ROAD, TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTT. SOLAN (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AADFC9018P ASSESSEE BY : SH. HARRY RICKY, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. MANJ IT SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.12.2016 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THESE APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), SHIMLA, DATE D 29.01.2016 AND 28.07.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY IN RESPECT OF M/S VANSER MET ALICS, ITA NOS. 1031 TO 1036/CHD./2016 VANSER METALICS, SANSUI ELECTR ONICS & CUTTING EDGE TECHN OLOGIES 2 BADDI AND M/S SANSUI ELECTRONICS, PARWANOO AND AGAI NST THE SEPARATE ORDER EACH DATED 20.07.2016 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12 IN THE CASE OF M/S CUTTING EDGE TECHNOLOGIES, BADDI. 2. THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE COMMON IN THESE APPEALS WHICH WERE HEARD TOGETHER SO THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 3. FIRST WE WILL DEAL WITH THE APPEAL IN THE CASE O F DCIT , PARWANOO VS M/S VANSER METALICS IN ITA NO. 1031/CHD./2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. FOL LOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION @100% AND ESCAPED HIS INCOME FROM TAX WILLFULLY. 2. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH MAY ARISE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE E-FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.2,78,160 /- AFTER CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR A SUM OF RS.64,75,460/-. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK SU BSTANTIAL EXPANSION AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT @100% BY TAKING RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AS INITI AL ITA NOS. 1031 TO 1036/CHD./2016 VANSER METALICS, SANSUI ELECTR ONICS & CUTTING EDGE TECHN OLOGIES 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR BUT THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE BY STATING THAT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION WAS APPLICABLE ONLY FOR UNITS EXISTING BEFORE 07.01.2003 AND NOT F OR THE UNIT SETUP AFTER 07.01.2003. HE, THEREFORE, MADE THE ADD ITION OF RS.51,37,255/- BY DISALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF SUBSTA NTIAL EXPANSION AND DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IC OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER THE ASSESSEE PREFER RED AN APPEAL TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 868/CHD./2014 WHEREIN THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.05.2014. SINCE, THE A DDITION WAS SUSTAINED UPTO THE LEVEL OF ITAT, THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS IN COME. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY OF RS.15,00,690/- WAS LEVIED. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE PENALTY BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ITA NO. 326/CHD./20 15 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCR ON ELECTRONICS VS ITO WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS AS NOTED ABOVE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT AND HAS BEEN CLAIMING THE SAME DEDUCTION FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 TIL L 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL I.E. 2009-10 CONTENDED THAT SINCE IT HAS UNDERTOOK SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION, THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL I.E. 2009-10 BEING INITIAL YEAR, ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT @ 100%. HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSMENT YE AR ITA NOS. 1031 TO 1036/CHD./2016 VANSER METALICS, SANSUI ELECTR ONICS & CUTTING EDGE TECHN OLOGIES 4 UNDER APPEAL I.E. 2009-10 IS THE 6TH YEAR OF THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKIN G, THEREFORE, INSTEAD OF CLAIM OF 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC, ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 80IC @ 25% ONLY. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS SUPPORTED BY AUDIT REPORT AND THE PAST HISTORY SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THUS, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE 6TH YEAR ON UNDERT AKING SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AND IT WAS CLAIMED TO BE FIRS T YEAR/INITIAL YEAR FOR CLAIMING 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. THUS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FALSE AND WAS ALSO NOT WRONG. THE ASSESSEE MADE CLAIM OF 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80/C OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSI ON CARRIED OUT IN FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, FURNISHED ALL PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME AS WELL AS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICE R AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. NOTHING WAS CONCEALED TO T HE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. WHOLE ISSUE WAS THUS, BASED UPON INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80/C O F THE ACT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80/C @ 100% ON UNDERTAKING SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL BY CLAIMING IT TO BE INITIAL YEAR. PRIOR TO THAT, THERE MAY BE NO HISTOR Y AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING SUCH A CLAIM. THE ISSUE IS WHOLLY DEBATABLE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SIMILAR ISSUE. THOUGH, THIS BE NCH HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF TIRUPATI LPG LTD.(SUPRA) ON QUANTUM AND DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON QUANTUM, BUT THERE WAS FAVOURABLE ORDER FOR MAKING SUCH A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80/C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT IS A CASE WHERE THERE MAY BE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80/C OF THE AC T IN 6TH YEAR @100%. 7. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR TH AT ASSESSES CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IN A BONAFIDE MANNER AND MERE FACT THAT CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ITA NOS. 1031 TO 1036/CHD./2016 VANSER METALICS, SANSUI ELECTR ONICS & CUTTING EDGE TECHN OLOGIES 5 DISALLOWED, WOULD NOT PROVE IT TO BE A FIT CASE OF LEVY OF PENALTY FOR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME . THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS DEBATABLE AND BONAFIDE. HOWEVER, THERE WAS CONFLICT FOR DETERMINATION OF PROVISION OF LAW. MERELY MAKING A CLAIM OF 100% DEDUCTION AGAINST 25% AS PER OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE AT PAR WITH CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS LTD. 322 ITR 158 HE LD AS UNDER: 'A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY , THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PARTICULARS' USED IN SECTION 2 71(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HEL D GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORD ER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PENALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAU SE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LIABILI TY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY, THE DETAILS SUPPLI ED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORREC T OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM ITA NOS. 1031 TO 1036/CHD./2016 VANSER METALICS, SANSUI ELECTR ONICS & CUTTING EDGE TECHN OLOGIES 6 WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NO T AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS.' 8. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BECAUSE IT IS WELL SETTLED THA T LEVY PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC IN EACH AND EVERY CASE AS IT DEPENDS UPON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 80IC HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS @ 100% AND ADMITTEDLY ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE M ADE BONAFIDE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF T HE ACT AND THERE WERE NO JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF MAKING SUCH A CLAIM. THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME SO AS TO LEVY THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BE LOW AND CANCEL THE PENALTY. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. DR ALTH OUGH SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO BUT COULD NOT CONTROV ERT THE AFORESAID FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD . CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLL OWING THE ORDER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF THE ITAT. THER EFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT MAY BE DISMISSED. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N THE ITA NOS. 1031 TO 1036/CHD./2016 VANSER METALICS, SANSUI ELECTR ONICS & CUTTING EDGE TECHN OLOGIES 7 RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HAS ALREADY BE EN DECIDED BY THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ITA NO. 316/CHD./20 15 IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO, BADDI, I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAI D ORDER, WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASS ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, DO NOT SEE MERIT IN THI S APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 9. IN ALL OTHER APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE GR OUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE DELETION OF PE NALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE SIMILAR HAVING THE IDENTIC AL FACTS, THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. 10. IN ITA NO. 1034/CHD./2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2011-12 IN THE CASE OF DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO VS M/ S SANSUI ELECTRONICS, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT WAS ALSO LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO F OR EXCESS CLAIM OF RENT. 11. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE TH AT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED RENT OF RS.12,36,000/-. HOWEVER, T HE AO HELD THAT THE RENT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN RS.12,97,800/ - BY INCORPORATING THE INCREASE @5% AS PER THE RENT AGRE EMENT AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.61,800/-. T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO INITIATED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID ADDITION AND THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT @100% ON THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED WITH RESPE CT TO THIS ADDITION ALSO. ITA NOS. 1031 TO 1036/CHD./2016 VANSER METALICS, SANSUI ELECTR ONICS & CUTTING EDGE TECHN OLOGIES 8 12. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEA L TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THIS PENALTY ALONG WITH THE PENALTY LEVIED IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DED UCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE A O HAD BROUGHT NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID IN EXCESS THAN WHAT HAD BEEN CLAIMED IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT AND THAT THE AO HAD PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION THA T TENANT AND THE LANDLORD WILL ENFORCE THE RENT AGREEMENT AN D THE ENHANCED RENT WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT NO CROSS VERIFICATION FROM THE LANDLO RD HAD BEEN MADE BY THE AO AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE MEREL Y ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION. ACCORDINGL Y, THE PENALTY WAS DELETED. 13. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. DR SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FI NDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). 14. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD . CIT(A) AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAD PAID RENT IN EXCESS OF WHAT HAD BEEN CLAI MED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTIO N THAT THE LANDLORD WILL ENFORCE THE RENT AGREEMENT AND TH E ENHANCED RENT WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 1031 TO 1036/CHD./2016 VANSER METALICS, SANSUI ELECTR ONICS & CUTTING EDGE TECHN OLOGIES 9 HOWEVER, NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTI ATE THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN FACT, HAD PAID THE EXCESS RENT THE N WHAT HAD BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS NOT LEVIABLE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT ON THE ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS.61,800. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMIS SED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21/12/2016) SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED: 21/12/2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR