Electron Colour Chem Pvt Ltd., Ahmedabad V. ITO, Wadr-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1234/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5101 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Wrong claim; Commercial expediency; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 251; 144

Judgement Text

, SMC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD ( CONVENED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ) BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1234/AHD/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) ELECTRON COLOUR CHEM PVT. LTD. 408, BALAJI ESTATE, NAROL ISANPUR HIGHWAY, NAROL, AHMEDABAD / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACE7479G ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIDHYUT TRIVEDI, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING 07/09/2020 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12/10/2020 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 0 5.04.2018 ARISING IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 24.03.2017 PASSE D BY THE ITA NO. 1234/AHD/18 [ELECTRON COLOUR CHEM PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 - ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CONCERNING AY. 2012-13. 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NONE APP EARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WA S PROPERLY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSES SEE WAS PUT TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING. THE MATTER WAS ACCORDINGLY PROC EEDED EX PARTE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD CIT(APPEALS) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.9,54,528/- LEVIED UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES WHEN THERE IS NEI THER CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS NOR INACCURATE PARTICULA RS OF INCOME FOR BONAFIDE CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENSES. THE LD CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE PLEA RAISED AN D DELETED PENALTY. 2. THE LD CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ILLEGAL AND INVALID ORDER LEVYING PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(C) WHEN THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED REPLY AND EXPLANAT ION IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE OF PE NALTY ORDER WHILE AO LEVIED PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT NO REPLY WAS FURNISHED AND THUS ORDER SUFFERED FROM VICE OF APPLICATION OF MIND AS HELD BY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE ORDER PASSED BE CANCELLED IN VIEW OF JUDGMENT O F GUJARAT HIGH COURT. 3. THE LD CIT(APPEALS) GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT NON CHARGING OF INTEREST ON BROUGHT FORWARD BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF ADVANCEE AMOUNTED TO FURNISHING OF INACC URATE PARTICULARS IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSMENT AND P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT, AND THERE WAS NO FALSE CLAIM MADE WHEN ALL PARTICULARS WERE DULY FUR NISHED. IT BE SO HELD NOW 4. THE LD CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING PENALTY LEVIED BY RELYING ON DECISIONS NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS AND IGNORING JUDGMENTS RELEVANT TO FACT OF TH E APPELLANT'S CASE. IT BE SO HELD NOW AND ORDER PASSE D BE CANCELLED. ITA NO. 1234/AHD/18 [ELECTRON COLOUR CHEM PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 - 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN TRADING OF TEXTILE CHEMICALS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF IN COME DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9,50,890/-. IN THE COURSE OF SC RUTINY ASSESSMENT, IT WAS INTER ALIA NOTICED BY THE AO THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.65,38,344/- UNDER S .36(1)(III) OF THE ACT ON MONEY BORROWED BY IT. THE AO ALSO SIMULTANE OUSLY FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ALSO ADVANCED CERTAIN FUNDS TO ITS ASSOCIATE, NAMELY, M/S. LASER EXPORTS PVT. LTD. FRE E OF INTEREST. AFTER ANALYSIS OF FACTS, THE AO DISALLOWED PROPORTI ONATE INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.27,25,150/- ATTRIBUTABLE TO INTEREST FREE ADVANCES ON THE GROUND THAT INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED FUNDS HAV E BEEN DIVERTED TOWARDS INTEREST FREE ADVANCES RESULTING IN REDUCTI ON OF TAXABLE INCOME. ON THIS DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES A TTRIBUTABLE TO INTEREST FREE ADVANCES, THE AO ALSO IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON ALLEGED FURNISHING OR IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY CLAIMING NON-GENUINE INTE REST EXPENSES TO SUPPRESS THE INCOME. A PENALTY OF RS.9,54,528/- WA S ACCORDINGLY QUANTIFIED ON THE DISALLOWANCES MADE TOWARDS INTERE ST ETC. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE LEGITIMACY OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY . THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE QUA PENALTY ON INTEREST DISALLOWANCE AND ACCORDINGLY CO NFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN FOLLOWING TERMS: 3.3 DECISION:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF RS.9,58,528/- FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF DISA LLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S. 36(1)(III) OF RS.27,25,150/- AND DISA LLOWANCE OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS.3,63,9367-. THE AO HAS DIS ALLOWED INTEREST U/S. 36(1)(III) OF RS.27,25,150/- AS APPEL LANT HAS GIVEN INTEREST FREE ADVANCE TO M/S. LASER EXPORTS PVT. LT D. OF RS.2,69,52,923/-. THE AO HAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED TH AT BORROWED ITA NO. 1234/AHD/18 [ELECTRON COLOUR CHEM PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 - FUND HAS BEEN USED TO MAKE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE. T HE APPELLANT IN QUANTUM APPEAL HAS ALSO WITHDRAWN THE GROUND ON THE GROUND THAT DUE TO THEIR PERSONAL DISPUTE WITH M/S. LASER EXPOR TS PVT. LTD., DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPELLANT DURING THE PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY IS NOT JUSTI FIED FOR THE REASON THAT APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED ALL DETAILS AND INFORMATION CALLED FOR AS REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EX PENSES OF RS.27,25,150/- AND RELIED UPON VARIOUS CASE LAWS. T HE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION IS NOT CORRECT AS APPELLANT NEITHER DURI NG THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE TO M/S. LASE R EXPORTS PVT. LTD. THE CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, AO WAS JUSTIFIED TO L EVY PENALTY FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S. 36(1)(III) OF RS.27,2 5,150/-. 3.4. THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. MADHUSUDAN VS. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99, HAS HELD AS U NDER:- 'THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS A PART OF SECTION 271. WHEN THE 1TO OR THE AAC ISSUES TO AN ASSESSEE A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271, HE MAKES THE ASSESSEE AWA RE THAT THE PROVISIONS THEREOF ARE TO BE USED AGAINST HIM. THESE PROVISIONS INCLUDE THE EXPLANATION. BY REASON OF TH E EXPLANATION WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN 80 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESS ED UNDER SECTION 143 OR 144 OR 147, REDUCED TO THE EXTENT TH EREIN PROVIDED, THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF, UNLESS HE PROVES THAT THE FAIL URE TO RETURN THE CORRECT INCOME DID NOT ARISE FROM ANY FR AUD OR NEGLECT ON HIS PART. THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, BY VIRTUE OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271 PUT TO NOTICE THAT IF DOES NOT PROVE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES STATED IN THE EXPLANATI ON THAT HIS FAILURE TO RETURN HIS CORRECT INCOME WAS NOT DU E TO FRAUD OR NEGLECT, HE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED TH E PARTICULAR OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF AND, CONSEQUENTLY, BE LIABLE TO THE PENALTY PROVIDED BY THAT SECTION. NO EXPRESS INVOCA TION OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271 IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271 IS NECESSARY BEFORE THE PROVISIONS OF THE EXPLA NATION THEREIN ARE APPLIED. THE HIGH COURT WAS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN REVERSI NG THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER CANCELLING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTI ON 271(1)(C).' ITA NO. 1234/AHD/18 [ELECTRON COLOUR CHEM PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 5 - 3.5. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. DHARMENDRA TEXTILES PROCESSORS, 174 TAXMAN 571/306 ITR 277-, HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 'IT IS OF SIGNIFICANCE TO NOTE THAT THE CONCEPTUAL AND CONTEXTUAL - DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECTION 271(1)(C) A ND SECTION 276C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WAS LOST SIGHT O F IN DILIP N. SHROFF'S CASE (SUPRA) THE EXPLANATION APPENDED TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT ENTIRELY INDICATES THE ELEMENTS OF STRICT L IABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OR FOR GIVING INACCURA TE PARTICULARS WHILE FILING RETURN. THE JUDGMENT IN DI LIP N. SHROFFS CASE (SUPRA) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EFFECT AND RELEVANCE OF SECTION 276C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. OB JECT BEHIND THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 27}(])(C) READ WITH THE EXPLANATION INDICATES THAT THE SAID SECTION HAS BEE N ENACTED TO PROVIDE FOR A REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE. THE PE NALTY UNDER THAT PROVISION IS A CIVIL LIABILITY. WILLFU L CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTR ACTING CIVIL LIABILITY AS IN THE CASE IN THE - MATTER OF P ROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT.' 3.6. THE HONOURABLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN IT S DECISION IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME LAX VS. SUBHASH TRADING CO. [86 TAXMANN. 30] (GUJARAT) HAS UPHELD THE PENALTY A S UNDER:- 'SO LONG AS PRESUMPTION RAISED IN FAVOUR OF THE REV ENUE UNDER THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(1)(C) STOOD UN REBUTTED AND WAS OPERATIVE THE REVENUE NEED NOT LEAD ANY EVI DENCE TO REACH A POSITIVE FINDING THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE BUT NO SOON THE PRESUMPTION RAISED UNDER THE EXPLANATION STOOD REBU TTED, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES MUST RECORD A POSITIVE FIND ING INDEPENDENT OF PRESUMPTION ABOUT CONCEALMENT OF INC OME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED OR PARTICULARS OF WHICH HAD BEEN INACCURATELY FURNISHE D BY HIM. AS IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE'S BURDEN T O REBUT THE PRESUMPTION RAISED BY THE REVENUE STOOD DISCHARGED ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE TRIB UNAL WAS RIGHT TO HOLD THAT PENALTY NEED NOT BE SUSTAINED UN DER SECTION 271(1)(C) IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO CON CLUDE POSITIVE FINDING THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF THE INCOME.' 3.7. THE LAW RELATING TO PENALTY WAS AMENDED W.E.F. 01.04.1976 AND ORIGINAL EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS REPLACED BY THE PRESENT ONE. AFTER THIS AMENDMENT, THE REVENUE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF ANY FRAUD OR HA S COMMITTED A WILLFUL NEGLECT I.E. MENS REA IS NOT TO BE PROVED B Y THE REVENUE. AS PER THE PRESENT EXPLANATION 1, IF THE ASSESSEE OFFE RS AN ITA NO. 1234/AHD/18 [ELECTRON COLOUR CHEM PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 6 - EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS, MATERIAL TO TH E COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME WHICH HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE A ND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONAFIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOT AL INCOME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM THEN THE AMOUNT ADDED ARE DIS ALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESU LT THEREOF SHALL BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHI CH' INACCURATE PARTICULARS-HAVE BEEN FILED. 3.8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED . 3.9. AS REGARD TO PENALTY ON DISALLOWANCE OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS.3,63,936/-, THE AO HAS MADE THE DISA LLOWANCE ON THE ESTIMATE @ 40% AND SAME HAS BEEN REDUCED BY THE CIT(A). AS THE DISALLOWANCE IS BASED ON PURELY ESTIMATE AND AS SUMPTIONS, PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE ON AMOUNT OF RS.3,63,936/-. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED . 6. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REVENUE ON THE CHALLENGE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL AND PE RUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVES IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON DISALLOWANCE ON ESTIMATED INTEREST EXPENSES IN PROPORTION TO THE CORRESPONDIN G INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. WE STRAIGHTWAY NOT E THAT IN ORDER TO ATTRACT PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THERE MUST BE CONCEALMENT BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE PARTICUL ARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE DISAL LOWANCE OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURE ON ESTIMATED BASIS ACTUALLY INCURRED ON THE GROUNDS OF LACK OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IS NEITHER CONCEALMEN T OF ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOME PER SE NOR FURNISHING OF INAC CURATE PARTICULARS AS SUCH. NEEDLESS TO SAY, BEFORE PENALTY CAN BE IM POSED, THE ENTIRETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES MUST REASONABLY POINT TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DISPUTED AMOUNT REPRESENTS INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO. 1234/AHD/18 [ELECTRON COLOUR CHEM PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 7 - CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS THEREOF OR FURNISHED INAC CURATE PARTICULARS. THE AO IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS DISALLOWED A PORTION OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS ON THE GROUND TH AT ASSESSEE HAS LENT MONEY WITHOUT CHARGING INTEREST. IT IS NOT TH E CASE OF THE AO THAT ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT NOT INCURRED ANY INTEREST EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED. A CONSPECTUS OF THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SE CTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE STATUTE VISUALIZ ED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS TO BE WHOLLY DI STINCT AND INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. WHILE THE AO MAY BE JUS TIFIED IN MAKING ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDING S, SUCH DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES, THAT TOO ON ESTIMATED BAS IS, COULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY FALL WITHIN MISCHIEF OF SECTION 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. WHILE A CLAIM TOWARDS EXPENDITURE MAY NOT FOUND ACC EPTABLE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, SUCH DISALLOWANCE CANNOT INVIT E TAX BURDEN BY WAY OF PENALTY. WHEN ALL MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT T O THE SAID CLAIM WERE PLACED ON RECORD, THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF C OMMERCIAL INSTINCT IN A GIVEN CASE IS A MATTER OF INFERENCE. SUCH ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST ASSESSEE WOULD NOT ATTRACT IMPOSI TION OF PENALTY. THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE TOWARDS INTEREST MADE, AT BEST, BE TAKEN AS ERRONEOUS CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE. SUCH CLAIM MADE I N A BONAFIDE MANNER CANNOT LEAD IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. ALTHOUGH SUCH CLAIM MAY NOT BE MAINTAINABLE FOR THE PURPOSES OF QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FALSITY PER SE IN SUCH CLAIM, MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IS NOT AT PAR WITH CONCEALMENT OR INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 8. WE ALSO TAKE NOTE OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DALMIA DYECHEM INDUSTR IES LTD. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1396 OF 2013 JUDGMENT DATED 0 6.07.2015 TO OBSERVE THAT THE PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED UNLESS T HE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE PER SE IS DISHONEST, MALAFIDE AND AMOUNTING TO CONCEALMEN T ITA NO. 1234/AHD/18 [ELECTRON COLOUR CHEM PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 8 - OF FACTS. THERE, BEING NO CONCEALMENT OF FACT PER SE, IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE PENALTY, IN OUR VIEW , IS CLEARLY NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST CONDUCT. CONSEQUENTLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON DISA LLOWANCE OF ESTIMATED INTEREST EXPENDITURE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED EX PARTE. SD/- SD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR K EDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 12/10/2020 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12/10/2020