Siddhartha Academy of General & Technical Education, Vijayawada V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

ITA 119/VIZ/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7796 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SONOWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V NAGAPRASAD
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Document seized; Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Application of stay; Reasonable cause; Assessment record; Condonation of delay; Revised return; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 153A; 147; 148; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / I . T .A.NO. 118 - 12 2 /VIZ/201 8 ( /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 10 , 2011 - 12 TO 2014 - 15 ) M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION PLOT NO.1, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR VIJAYAWADA [PAN : AABTS1271J] VS. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE VIJAYAWADA ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) ./I .T.A.NO.12 3 /VIZ/2018 ( /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 15) M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION PLOT NO.1, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR VIJAYAWADA [PAN : AABTS1271J] VS. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE VIJAYAWADA ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) STAY APPLICATION NO.02 /VIZ/201 9 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.12 3 /VIZ/2018) ( /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201 4 - 1 5 ) M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION PLOT NO.1, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR VIJAYAWADA [PAN : AABTS1271J] VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) 2 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA / APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.NAGA PRASAD, AR / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI D. K.SONOWAL , CIT DR / DATE OF HEARING : 0 1 .0 7 .2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 .0 7 .2019 / O R D E R P ER BENCH : SA NO.02/VIZ/2019, A.Y.2014 - 15 1. STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2014 - 15 IS DISMISSED SINCE THE APPEAL IS TAKEN UP SIMULTANEOUSLY. I.T.A. NO.118 - 122/VIZ/2018 A.Y. : 2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO 2014 - 15 2. THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] - 12, HYDERABAD DATED 14.02.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO 2014 - 15. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, THESE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND A COMMON ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS UNDER. 3 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA 2.1. IN ALL THE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE RAISED COMMON GR OUNDS OF APPEAL IN GROUND NOS. 1, 2 AND 3 RELATING TO ASSESSEES PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH READS AS UNDER : 1 . ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS LD. CIT(A)) ERRED IN REFUSING TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 2 . THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REASONS FOR FILING BELATED APPEAL WERE NOT BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT. 3 . THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE ISSUES ON MERITS WHICH IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, FAIR PROCEDURE AND LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE DELAY BE CONDONED AND APPEAL BE TAKEN UP AND CONSI DERED ON MERITS. 2.2. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY. SINCE THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE APPEAL AND THE CRUCIAL ISSUE TO GO FURTHER , WE FIRST TAKE UP THE I SSUE WITH REGARD TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, A SEARCH U/S 132 WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE ON 07.05.2014. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CASH OF RS.3,77,00,685/ - WAS FOUND AND A SUM OF RS.3,75,00,000/ - WAS SEIZED. IN THE BANK LOCKERS ALSO FURTHER SUM OF RS.6,42,19,000/ - CASH WAS FOUND WHICH WAS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION TEAM, HENCE, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ALSO SEIZED. THUS THE 4 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF CASH SEIZED WAS RS.10.17 CRORES. A STATEMENT U/S 132(4) WAS RECORDED ON 07.05.2014, 20.06.2014 AND 01.07.2014 FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE ACADEMY WHO HAS ADMITTED THAT THE CASH SEIZED AMOUNTING TO RS.10,17,19,000/ - WAS NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ACADEMY AND REPRESENTED THE ANONYMOUS DONATIONS RECEI VED IN THE EARLIER YEARS, WHICH I S BEING USED FOR MEETING THE UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THE YEAR - WISE BREAKUP OF ANONYMOUS DONATIONS RECEIVED AND UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2008 - 09 AND 2010 - 11 TO 2013 - 14 AS UNDER : SL.NO. FIN.YEAR ASST.YEAR RECEIPTS RS. EXPENDITURE RS. NET RECEIPTS RS. 1. 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 1,92,00,000 -- 1,92,00,000 2. 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 8,27,95,000 2,42,67,700 5,85,27,300 3. 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2,96,03,000 6,04,63,675 - 3,08,60,675 4. 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 7,32,79,500 73,91,480 6,58,88,020 5. 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 9,44,15,000 8,19,90,604 1,24,24,396 TOTAL 29,92,92,500 17,41,13,459 12,51,79,041 2.3. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED ABOVE NET RECEIPTS AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.12,51,79,041/ - FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2.4. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS DECLARING 'NIL' INCOME THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS AS EXEMPT U/S 11 OF THE 5 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA ACT INCLUDING UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. HOWEVER, DURING THE PENDENCY OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED RETURNS OF INCOME ADMITTING THE TAXABLE INCOME U/S 153A AS UNDER: A.Y. REVISED RETURN OF INCOME 2009 - 10 1,92,00,000 2011 - 12 7,31,64,876 2012 - 13 2,00,64,160 2013 - 14 6,19,68,644 2014 - 15 8,32,66,399 2.5. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) ACCEPTING THE REVISED RETURNS AND INITIATED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY LEVIED THE PENALTY. AFTER THE LEVY OF THE PENALTIES U/S 271(1)(C), THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH A DELAY OF 264 DAYS AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT IT HAS FILED THE REVISED RETURNS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF NOT TO LEVY THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND PUT TO AN END FOR THE LI TIGATION, HENCE, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME AND DID NOT GO ON APPEAL AS PER THE GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT. TILL SUCH TIME THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED 6 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE DEPARTMENT WOULD HONOUR IT'S COMMITMENT WITH REGARD TO NON - LEVYING OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT HONOUR IT'S COMMITMENT AND LEVIED THE PENALTY, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS FORCED TO COME ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), HENCE REQUESTED TO CONDONE THE DEL AY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ARGUED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR HONOURING ITS COMMITMENT I.E. PAYMENT OF TAXES AND THE PENALTY THOUGH THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME IS EXEMPT U/S 11 AND THERE IS NO CASE FOR TAX ING THE RECEIPTS U/S 115 BBC OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE LD.CIT(A) TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. NOT BEING CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY SINCE THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE INLIMINE. THE LD.CIT(A) RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF ENCON FURNACES (P.) LTD. VS. ASST.COM MISSIONER (1996) 56 I TD 14 (DELHI - TRIB), PRASHANT PROJECTS LTD. VS. DY.CIT (2013) 37 TAXMANN.COM 137 7 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF T.KISHAN VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD (2012) 23 TAXMANN.COM 383 (HYDERABAD). AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 2.6. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, CARRYING ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AND THERE IS NO PROFIT MOTIVE EITHER FOR DIRECTO RS OR PROMOTERS OR THE INSTITUTION. IT IS A WELL - KNOWN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IN AND AROUND VIJAYAWADA RUNNING 16 INSTITUTIONS RIGHT FROM KG TO PG WITH SCHOOLING, COLLEGE, ENGINEERING AND MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132, CASH WAS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED THE INCOME U/S 132(4) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10.17 CRORES, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECONCILED THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS AND FOUND THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE SPENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES THUS THERE WAS NO NEED TO OFFER ANY ADDITIONAL INCOME. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE FILED NIL RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE 8 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA NOTICES ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT. DURING T HE PENDENCY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DUE TO PRESSURE AND PERSUASION OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME AS PER THE LETTER DATED 10.03.2016 SUBJECT TO CONDITION OF NOT TO LEVY THE PENALTY. THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS O FFERED WITH AN INTENTION TO CLOSE THE PROCEEDINGS AND TO PURCHASE PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, FILED THE REVISED RETURNS, THOUGH THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR FILING THE REVISED RETURNS IN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR SUBMI TTED THAT SINCE, THE SURRENDER OF INCOME WAS CONDITIONAL, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE PENALTY WOULD NOT BE IMPOSED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. THOUGH THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS AS PER THE REVISED RETURNS FILED WITHOUT TAKING THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE PENALTY WAS INITIATED WHICH IS INCORRECT. EVEN AFTER HAVING SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION, EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR ADMISSION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN SPARED AND LEVIED THE PENALTY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS CONST RAINED TO GO ON APPEAL SEEKING JUSTICE SINCE, THE DEPARTMENT HAS BROKEN IT'S COMMITMENT WITH REGARD TO TAKING LENIENT VIEW ON PENALTY. 9 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE APPEALS TILL THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE FINALI SED AND THE APPEALS ARE FILED ONLY AFTER PASSING THE PENALTY ORDERS WHICH SHOWS THE BONAFIDE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO HONOUR THE UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE. BY LEVYING THE PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE TO SUFFER THE TAX AND PENALTY WHICH IS HEAVY BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE PROCEEDINGS DID NOT CLOSE AS EXPECTED HENCE FORCED TO COME ON APPEAL. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR ADDITIONAL INCOME IT WAS ADMITTED ONLY WITH AN INTENTION TO PURCHASE PEACE. THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED INLIMINE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF APPEALS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO PRESENT THE CASE ON MERITS. THEREFORE REQUESTED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILIN G THE APPEAL AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO CASE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CONDONE THE DELAY. THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY FOUND THAT THERE IS NO 10 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY. THE ASSESSEE IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WHICH IS CONDUCTING PROFESSIONAL COURSES AND SUPP ORTED BY BATTERY OF COUNSELS AND FULLY AWARE OF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO ASSISTED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT TO COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE NOT TO LEVY PENALTY. T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER AND ON COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED. THEREFORE, LD.DR ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO CASE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY AND REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, SEARCH U/S 132 WAS CONDUCTED ON 07.05.2014. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CASH AND INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.12.51 CRORES AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4). SUBSEQUENTLY TH E ASSESSEE FILED THE 'NIL' RETURNS 11 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA AND CLAIMED SET OFF OF THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS AND DONATIONS INCLUDING THE CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AGAINST THE EXPENDITURE AND CLAIMED THE ENTIRE INCOME AS EXEMPT. AS EXPLAINED THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED THE RECE IPTS TO THE EXTENT OF MORE THAN 90% FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS PER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE MET THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 11, THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO FILE THE RETURNS OF INCOME ADMITTING NIL INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY AS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE LETTER DATED 10.03.2016 BEFORE THE AO SURRENDE RING ADDITIONAL INCOME CONDITIONALLY. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONVENIENCE WE EXTRACT PARA NUMBER 5&7 OF THE LETTER CITED SUPRA WHICH READS AS UNDER: '5. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT, WE HAD FILED RETURNS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S. I 53A ON 05 - 03 - 2015 FR OM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 TO 2014 - 15 BY DISCLOSING THE ANONYMOUS DONATIONS RECEIVED AND EXPENDITURE FOUND RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL. EVEN AFTER CONSIDERING / INCLUDING THE ANONYMOUS DONATIONS AND EXPENDITURE FOUND IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WITH THE RE CEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED DURING THE YEAR EXCEEDED THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF 85 % OF THE RECEIPTS. AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO TAX LIABILITY AND NO REQUIREMENT OF PREPARING COMPUTATION OF TOTAL I NCOME: THE STAND TAKEN BY THE SOCIETY WAS STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 11 TO 13 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT READ WITH A PLETHORA OF CASE LAWS PRONOUNCED BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES, THE RETURNS WERE FILED ACCORDINGLY. 7. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE REVISED RETURNS ARE BEING FILED ONLY WITH THE SOLE OBJECTIVE OF PURCHASING PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND TO AVOID POSSIBLE LITIGATION. THE ABOVE RETURNS ARE FILED WITH A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT NO PENAL AND PROSECUTION PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE 12 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. IN CASE THE DEPARTMENT IS OF A DIFFERENT VIEW AT ANY STAGE WE MAY BE PERMITTED TO REVERT TO OUR ORIGINAL STAND AS MENTIONED IN PARA 5 ABOVE AS THE REVISED RETURNS ARE BEING FILED ONLY WITH A VIEW TO BUY PEACE WITH TH E DEPARTMENT.' 4.1. AS PER THE LETTER FILED BEFORE THE ACIT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED DURING THE YEAR EXCEEDED THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF RECEIPTS OF 85% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS. AS SUCH THERE WAS NO TAX LIABILITY AND NO REQUIR EMENT OF PREPARING COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AND CLAIMED THAT THE RETURNS ARE FILED STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT. FROM PARA NO.7, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REVISED RETURNS WITH A SOLE OBJECTIVE OF PURCHASING P EACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, TO AVOID FUTURE LITIGATION AND WITH CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT NO PENAL AND PROSECUTION PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUESTED VIDE LETTER THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PERMITTED TO TAKE ORIGINAL STAND IN CASE THE DEPARTMENT IS HAVING DIFFERENT VIEW WITH REGARD TO PENALTY. LETTER DATED 10.03.2016 VERY CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE SURRENDER OF INCOME CONDITIONALLY, BUT NOT ULTIMATELY. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RE VISED RETURNS OF INCOME 13 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME AS PER THE LETTER. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ACCEPTING THE REVISED RETURNS WITHOUT GOING INTO THE DETAILS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. ONLY AFTER LEVYING OF PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS AGITATING THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS THE PENALTIES LEVIED BY THE AO. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT THE DEPARTMENT WOULD TAKE LENIENT VIEW WITH REGARD TO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AND 271AAB/271AAA OF THE ACT, IF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME IS ADMITTED. SUCH AN UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE'S IS NOT UNCOMMON IN SEARCH / SURVEY CASES. THOUGH AS PER THE ACT, IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE, WITH AN INTENTION TO COLLECT THE TAXES AND TO PREVENT FUTURE RETRA CTIONS THE DEPARTMENT DO PUT FORTH SUCH PROPOSALS AND THE ASSESSEE S ACCEPT THE SAME TO PUT FULL STOP FOR LITIGATION. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ACCEPTING THE REVISED RETURNS INSTEAD OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND THE EVIDENCES COLLECTED DURING THE SEARCH. IF THE PROPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO TAKING LENIENT VIEW IS NOT 14 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA POSSIBLE THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE INTIMATED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE AND SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT REJECTING THE REVIS ED RETURN WHICH WAS FILED ON CONDITIONAL SURRENDER. THE AO WOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AS PER INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH INSTEAD OF ACCEPTING THE REVISED RETURNS. SINCE THE A O HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ACCEPTING TH E REVISED RETURN, IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE REVISED RETURNS WE RE FILED SUBJECT TO NON - LEVYING OF PENALTY. FROM THE ABOVE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE'S ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME THROUGH REVISED RETURN IS CONDITIONAL SURRENDER AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER LETTER DATED 10.03.2016. SINCE THE A O HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY ON ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME WHICH WAS SURRENDERED CONDITIONALLY, THE DEPARTMENT HAS GONE AGAINST THE IMPLIE D MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE AND SAME IS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME TRUSTING THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE PENALTY WOULD NOT BE IMPOSED AN D IF THE 15 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA DEPARTMENT PROCEEDS TO CONTINUE THE LITIGATION AND LEVY THE PENALTY, THE VERY PURPOSE OF ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME IS DEFEATED AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO SEEK THE JUSTICE THROUGH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. IN THIS CASE VERY FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE KEPT SILENT TILL THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE FINALIZED, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT THE DEPARTMENT WOULD TAKE LENIENT VIEW ON FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. MORE SO BECAUSE THE A O HAD ACCEPTED THE REVISED RET URNS WHICH WERE FILED AS PER THE LETTER DATED 10.03.2016. THE LD.CIT(A) RELIED ON THE DECISIONS CITED I N THE ORDER AND THE FACTS OF THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A) ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AS STATED BY THE LD.AR. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT ENCON FURNACES (P ) LTD AND PRASHANT PROJECTS LTD. ARE RELATED TO NON PAYMENT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAXES AND IN THE CASE OF T.KISHAN, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE A O INSTEAD OF THE CIT(A). THE LD.AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ESHA B HATTACHERJEE VS. MANAGING COMMITTEE OF RAGHUNATHPUR, NAFAR ACADEMY (2013) 5 CTC 547. HON'BLE APEX COURT LAID DOWN CERTAIN BROAD GUIDELINES FOR CONDONING THE DELAY WHICH ARE EXTRACTED FORM 16 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA PARA NO.15 OF THE ORDER WHICH READS ASUNDER: '15. FROM THE AFORESAID AUTHORITIES THE PRINCIPLES THAT CAN BROADLY BE CULLED OUT ARE: I) THERE SHOULD BE A LIBERAL, PRAGMATIC, JUSTICE - ORIENTED, NON - PEDANTIC APPROACH WHILE DEALING WITH AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, FOR THE COURTS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO LEGALISE, INJUSTICE BUT ARE OBLIGED TO REMOVE INJUSTICE II) THE TERMS 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN THEIR PROPER SPIRIT, PHILOSOPHY AND PURPOSE REGARD BEING HAD TO THE FACT THESE TERMS ARE BASICALLY ELASTIC AND ARE TO BE APPLIED IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE TO TH E OBTAINING FACT SITUATION. III) SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BEING PARAMOUNT AND PIVOTAL THE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN UNDUE AND UNCALLED FOR EMPHASIS. IV) NO PRESUMPTION CAN BE ATTACHED TO DELIBERATE CAUSATION OF DELAY BUT, GROSS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE COUNSEL OR LITIGANT IS TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF V ) LACK OF BONAFIDES IMPUTABLE TO A PARTY SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IS A SIGNIFICANT AND RELEVANT FACT. VI ) IT IS TO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT ADHERENCE TO STRICT PROOF SHOULD NOT AFFECT PUBLIC JUSTICE AND CAUSE PUBLIC MISCHIEF BECAUSE THE COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE VIGILANT SO THAT IN THE ULTIMATE EVENTUATE THERE IS NO REAL FAILURE OF JUSTICE. VII ) THE CONCEPT OF LIBERAL APPROACH HAS TO ENCAPSULE THE CONCEPTION OF REASONABLENESS AND IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED A TOTALLY UNFET TERED FREE PLAY. VIII ) THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN INORDINATE DELAY AND A DELAY OF SHORT DURATION OR FEW DAYS, FORTH THE FORMER DOCTRINE OF PREJUDICE IS ATTRACTED WHEREAS TO THE TATTER IT MAY NOT BE ATTRACTED, THAT APART, THE FIRST ONE WARRANTS STRICT APPROAC H WHEREAS THE SECOND CALLS FOR A LIBERAL DELINEATION 17 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA IX ) THE CONDUCT, BEHAVIOUR AND ATTITUDE OF A PARTY RELATING TO ITS INACTION OR NEGLIGENCE ARE RELEVANT FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IT IS SO AS THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE IS THAT THE COURTS ARE REQU IRED TO WEIGH THE BALE OF BALANCE OF JUSTICE IN RESPECT OF BOTH PARTIES AND THE SAID PRINCIPLE CANNOT BE GIVEN A TOTAL GO BY IN THE NAME OF LIBERAL APPROACH. X ) IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS CONCOCTED OR THE GROUNDS URGED IN THE APPLICATION ARE FANCIFUL, TH E COURTS SHOULD BE VIGILANT NOT TO EXPOSE THE OTHER SIDE UNNECESSARILY TO FACE SUCH A LITIGATION. XII) THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF FACTS ARE TO BE CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZED AND THE APPROACH SHOULD BE BASED ON THE PARADIGM OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION WHICH IS FOUNDED ON OBJECTIVE REASONING AND NOT ON INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTION. XIII) THE STATE OR A PUBLIC BODY OF AN ENTITY REPRESENTING A COLLECTIVE CAUSE SHOULD BE GIVEN SOME ACCEPTABLE LATITUDE. 4.2. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF SURYA GENERAL TRADERS VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS (APHC) 1997 (3) ALT 110, 2003 133 STC 388 AP HELD AS UNDER: 'WHEN A PERSON HAS A GOOD CASE ON MERITS, DEFEAT OF HIS CLAIM ON TECHNICAL PLEA OR LIMITATION WOULD ULTIMATELY LEAD TO INJUSTICE. IT HAS OFTEN BEEN OBSERVED B Y THE APEX COURT THAT STATE SHOULD NOT STAND BY A TECHNICAL PLEA OF LIMITATION IF A CITIZEN'S CASE WAS OTHERWISE MERITORIOUS. IN COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION V. MST. KATIJI [1987166 STC228, THE APEX COURT HELD THAT 'EVERY DAYS DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED' DOES NOT IMPLY A PEDANTIC APPROACH AND THE DOCTRINE HAS TO BE APPLIED IN RATIONAL SENSE IN A PRAGMATIC MANNER: THE APEX COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DOCTRINE OF EQUALITY DEMANDS THAT ALL LITIGANTS, INCLUDING THE STATE AS A LITIGANT, ARE TO BE ACCORDED THE SA ME TREATMENT. THERE HAVE BEEN VARIOUS CASES IN WHICH THE APEX CONT, HAS EXPLAINED THAT SO FAR AS STATE IS CONCERNED THERE MAY BE DELAY OCCASIONED ON ITS PART BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS IN THE STATE TO 18 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA FILE A CASE INVOLVES LAYER AF TER LAYER STAGES WHICH THE PAPERS MUST GO THROUGH BEFORE FINAL DECISION IS TAKEN TO CHALLENGE AN ORDER, AND THAT THE QUESTION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN SO FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED SHOULD BE VIEWED FROM THIS ANGLE. THOUGH WE DO NOT PROPOSE AT ALL TO S AY THAT THE SAME APPROACH MUST BE ADOPTED FOR PRIVATE LITIGANTS ALSO, YET WE FEEL THAT THE PRINCIPLE CAN BE EXTENDED WHERE A PERSON HAS A GOOD CASE ON MERITS AND THE STATE SHOULD NOT TAKE TECHNICAL PLEA OF LIMITATION SO AS TO DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS JUST DUES. CONSIDERING SUCH FACT, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DIRECT THE TRIBUNAL TO RECONSIDER THE QUESTION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE. THE WRIT PETITION IS ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED OF NO COSTS.' 4.3. IN THE CASE OF MO HD. IRSAD VS. ITO, WARD - 2(1), THE ITAT DELHI BENCH ON IDENTICAL FACTS HELD THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY DESPITE THE CONDITIONAL SURRENDER, IT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE JURISDICTION AND DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL REQUIRED TO BE CO NDONED. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT PARA NO.2 OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, DELHI WHICH READS AS UNDER: '2. THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY 315 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BY STATING THEREIN THAT THE DELAY OCCURRED IN THE PRESENT EASE IS BONA TIDE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESS EE HAD MADE SURRENDER OF RS. 50,00,000/ - SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTION BUT WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE A0 INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 30 - 12 2011 UPHELD THE PROCEEDING INITIATED BY THE A0 U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,00,000/ - ACCEPTING THE SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ID. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.7,13,535/ - MADE BY THE A0 ON OTHER GROUNDS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE CONDITIONAL SURRENDER H AD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A0 AND THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE A0 IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF RS.1 7,00,000/ - VIDE ORDER DATED 30.07.201Z THE ASSESSEE AFTER RECEIVING THE SAID ORDER SO UGHT AN OPINION FROM THE LEGAL EXPERTS WHO OPINED THAT THE SURRENDER WAS CONDITIONAL, IT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO BUY PEACE AND TO AVOID LITIGATION AS LIE BEING THE ILLITERATE PERSON, NOT CONVERSANT WITH THE LAW. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT 19 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA SINCE DESP ITE THE CONDITIONAL SURRENDER A0 IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF RS.17,00,000/ - THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSTRAINED TO FILE THE PRESENT APPEAL CHALLENGING THE PROCEEDING U/S 148 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING GOES TO THE VARY ROUTE OF THE MATTER AND TOUCHES THE JURISDICTION OF THE A0 U/S 147 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WE CONDONED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 5. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME CONDITIONALLY AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY INSPITE OF THE CONDITIONAL OFFER AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF ADMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE'S CASE REQUIRED TO BE HEARD ON MERITS TO RENDER THE JUSTICE. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY AND DELAY OF FILING THE APPEAL REQUIRED TO BE CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER GIVI NG OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO.123/VIZ/2018, A.Y.2014 - 15 6 . THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271AAB FOR THE A.Y.2014 - 15 VIDE APPEAL NO.10174/2017 - 18 DATED 12.03.2018. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A AND PENALTY WAS INITIATED U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.2,49,79,920 U/S 271AAB 20 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. 7 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 7.1. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL ON QUANTUM ADDITION FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15 IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. SINCE THE PENALTY IS CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE OUTCOME OF THE APPEAL ON QUANTUM, WE DEEM IT FIT TO REMIT THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER DECIDING THE QUANTUM APPEAL . ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON PENALTY U/S 271AAB IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, ( I ) STAY APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN SA NO.02/VIZ/2019 FOR THE A.Y.2014 - 15 IS DISMISSED. ( II ) APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NOS.118 - 122/VIZ/201 8 FOR THE A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO 2014 - 15 ARE ALLOWED FOR 21 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA STATISTICAL PURPOSE ( III ) APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO.123/VIZ/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JUL 2019. S D/ - S D/ - ( . . ) ( . ) ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (V. DURGA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM /DATED : 17 .0 7 .2019 L.RAMA, SPS 22 S.A.NO.01/VIZ/2019 & I.T.A. NO .118 - 123/VIZ/2018 A.Y.2009 - 10, 2011 - 12 TO.2014 - 2015 M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, VIJAYAWADA /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / THE ASSESSEE - M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PLOT NO.1, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA 2. / THE REVENUE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , VIJAYAWADA 4 . THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 5 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 12, HYDERABAD 6. , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 7 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM