ACIT, CHENNAI V. Meenakshi Ammal Trust, CHENNAI

ITA 126/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4466 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS ILAVARASI
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 12AA; 27; 132; 10; 11; 15; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NOS.113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118 & 119/MDS / 2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06- 07, 07-08, 08-09 & 2009-2010. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1) INVESTIGATION WING, CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S. SRI MUTHUKUMARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, NO.61, OLD NO. 641, RAMASAMY SALAI, K.K. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 078. [PAN AABTS 6980L] ./I.T.A. NOS.120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/MDS / 2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06- 07, 07-08, 08-09 & 2009-2010. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1) INVESTIGATION WING, CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S. MEENAKSHI AMMAL TRUST, NO.61, OLD NO. 641, RAMASAMY SALAI, K.K. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 078. [PAN AAATM 4676Q] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ! / APPELLANT BY : MRS. ILAVARASI, ADDL. CIT. '# ! /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE $ %& /DATE OF HEARING : 02-05-2017 '( %& /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-05-2017 ITA NOS.113 TO 126/2017 :- 2 -: / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED A GAINST ORDERS DATED 28.10.2016 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS)- 18, CHENNAI. W3 2. GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSEES FOR ALL THE YEARS ARE SIMILAR EXCEPT FOR THE QUANTUM OF T HE PENALTY LEVIED AND THESE ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S:271(1)(C) OF RS. 1,80,000/- , IN THE PENALTY OR DER PASSED FOR THE A.Y 2003-04. 2.1. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PENALTY O UGHT TO HAVE BEEN INITIATED U/S.271AAA OF THE I.T. ACT FOR THE A .Y'S FROM 2003-04 TO 2009-10. 2.2 THE ID.CIT(A) ERRED IN STATING THAT PENALTY IS EXIGIBLE ONLY U/S 271AAA OF IT ACT WHEREAS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE PENALTY IS EXIGIBLE ONLY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT AND NOT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE IT ACT. 2.3 THE ID.CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT PE NALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE IT ACT IS EXIGIBLE ONLY TO THE ASSESS MENT YEARS RELEVANT TO THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEARS AS P ER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) TO SECTION 271AAA REA D WITH EXPLANATION TO SUB-SECTION (4) OF THAT SECTION, WHE REAS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE FOR THE ASS ESSMENT ITA NOS.113 TO 126/2017 :- 3 -: YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION VIZ., THE AYS 2003-04 TO 2 007-08 DO NOT QUALIFY AS THE SPECIFIED PERVIOUS YEARS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AFORESAID PROVISION OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE IT ACT. 3. THE LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST DID NOT ADMIT SUCH INCOME IN ITS RET URNS EITHER U/S.139 OR U/S.153A OF THE I.T. ACT FOR T HE A.Y'S 2008-09 TO 2009-10 AND HENCE, DID NOT FULFILL THE C RITERIA AS ENVISAGED U/S. 271AAA OF THE I.T. ACT LEAVING THE A .O WITH NO OTHER OPTION THAN TO LEVY THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1 )(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3.1 THE ID.CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT F OR OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED YEARS PENALTY IS ATTRACTED AUTOMATICA LLY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT I N VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF EXPLANATION SA TO SECTION 271( 1)( C) OF IT ACT APPLICABLE ONLY TO SEARCH CASES. 4. FOR THESE GROUNDS AND FOR ANY OTHER GROUND INCL UDING AMENDMENT THAT MAY BE RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF T HE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (APPEA LS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED . 3. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEES WERE SUB JECTED TO A SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT THE ACT) ON 29.09.2008. BOTH THE ASSESSEES WERE RUNNING NUMBER OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND HAD COMMON TRUSTEES NAMELY SMT. R. GOMATHI, SHRI. A.N. RADHAKRISHNAN AND SMT. D. MEENAKSHI AMMAL. THE SE ASSESSEES WERE ALSO REGISTERED U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT VIDE ORDE RS DATED 02.12.1999 BY THE DIT(EXEMPTION), CHENNAI. PURSUANT TO THE SEA RCH, ASSESSMENTS ITA NOS.113 TO 126/2017 :- 4 -: FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE COMPLETED MAKING ADDITIONS FOR VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND F OR DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEES IN ONE M/S. RMG BENEFIT FUND LTD. FORMER ADDITION WAS BASED ON A FINDING THAT VOLUNTARILY CONTRIBUTI ONS WERE CAPITATION FEE RECEIVED FROM PARENTS OF THE STUDENTS WHO WERE ADMITTED TO THE VARIOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RUN BY THE TRUSTS AND TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 115BBC OF THE ACT. LATTER ADDITION WAS FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 11(5) OF THE ACT SINCE M/S. RMG BENEFIT FUND LTD WA S A COMPANY WHICH WAS CLOSELY HELD BY THE TRUSTEES OF THE TRUST S ALONGWITH THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. 4. ASSESSEES APPEALS ON SUCH ADDITIONS BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MET WITH PARTI AL SUCCESS. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT ADDI TION FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 11(5) OF THE ACT HAD TO BE CONFINED TO QUAN TUM OF THE DEPOSITS MADE DURING THE CORRESPONDING PREVIOUS YEARS. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO DELETED THE ADDITIONS MAD E U/S. 115BBC OF THE ACT. IT SEEMS THE TRIBUNAL ON FURTHER APPEALS B Y THE REVENUE HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD. 5. THEREAFTER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PROCEEDI NGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMEN T YEARS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSEES. IN CULMINATION OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS , LD. ASSESSING ITA NOS.113 TO 126/2017 :- 5 -: OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY FOR THE ADDITIONS MADE IN RE LATION TO DEPOSITS MADE TO M/S. RMG BENEFIT FUND TO THE EXTENT SUCH A DDITIONS WERE SUSTAINED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS), FOR ALL IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS EXCEPT ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008- 09 AND 2009-2010. FOR THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEAR S, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN T HE INCOME ORIGINALLY RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S. 15 3A OF THE ACT, AND REVISED RETURNS FILED WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS WERE REA CHING FINALITY. AS PER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSE D INCOME FROM ANONYMOUS DONATION IN THE REVISED RETURNS ONLY WHEN THE SEIZED MATERIALS WERE PUT ACROSS TO IT. 6. BOTH THE ASSESSEES MOVED APPEALS BEFORE LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHEREIN IT ASSAILED THE ME RITS OF THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES WAS THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. HOWEVER IN THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BEF ORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASSESSEES ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SEC. 271AAA OF THE ACT INTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT, 2007 W.E.F. 01.04.2007 ALONE COULD BE APPLIED AND PENALTY COULD NOT BE LEVIED U /S. U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEES RELIED ON AN ORDER OF THIS TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI. A.N. RADHAKRISHNAN VS. ACIT IN ITA 684 TO 686/MDS/2 013, 650, ITA NOS.113 TO 126/2017 :- 6 -: 1076 AND 1077/MDS/2013, DATED 05.08.2016 , WHICH WAS IN RESPECT OF ONE OF THE TRUSTEES SHRI. A.N. RADHAKRISHNAN. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS HELD THAT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS PENALTY COULD NOT BE LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BUT ONLY UNDER SEC. 271AAA OF THE ACT. HE ALLOWED THE APPEALS AND DELETED LEVY OF PENALTY FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. 7. NOW BEFORE US, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STR ONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT SEC. 271AAA OF THE ACT APPLIED TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH HAD ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH, WHERE, T HE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S. 139 OF THE ACT HAD NOT EXPIRED, AND ASS ESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED A RETURN OF INCOME. AS PER LD. DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE ONLY OTHER YEAR THAT COULD COME WITHIN THE AMBIT O F SEC. 271AAA OF THE ACT WAS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH WAS CONDUC TED. ACCORDING TO HER, SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 29.09.2008 AND THE DAT E FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 WAS 30.09.2 008. AS PER LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEES HAD NOT FIL ED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 PRIOR TO 3 0.09.2008. HENCE AS PER LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008- 2009 MIGHT COME UNDER SECTION 271AAA OF THE AC. FUR THER AS PER LD. ITA NOS.113 TO 126/2017 :- 7 -: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THE ONLY OTHER YEAR FO R WHICH SEC. 271AAA OF THE ACT COULD BE INVOKED WAS PREVIOUS YEA R ENDING 31.03.2009 VIZ ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. THUS, AC CORDING TO LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE EXCEPT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-2009 AND 2009-2010 FOR ALL THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS LD . ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WELL WITHIN HIS POWERS TO LEVY PENALTY U/S. 27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT. EVEN FOR THESE TWO YEARS, AS PER LD. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE, JUST BECAUSE A WRONG SECTION WAS INVOKED BY THE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CANCELLED. 8. PER CONTRA, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY A DMITTED THAT SEC. 271AAA OF THE ACT APPLIED ONLY FOR ASSESS MENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-2010. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO HIM, FOR THE EARLIER YEARS MERITS OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY ASSAILED BY THE ASS ESSEE, BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT CONSID ERED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IN SO FAR AS ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-2010 WERE CONCERNED, AS PER LD. AU THORISED REPRESENTATIVE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO POWERS TO PROCEED UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. 9. .. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- ITA NOS.113 TO 126/2017 :- 8 -: (1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, DIRECT THAT, IN A CASE WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIA TED UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY, IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM, A SUM COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF TEN PER CENT. OF THE UNDISC LOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR. (2) NOTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL APPL Y IF THE ASSESSEE,- (I) IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132, ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPECIFIES THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED ; (II) SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED ; AND (III) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. (3) NO PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C) O F SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON TH E ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME REFER RED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1). (4) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 274 AND 275 SHALL, S O FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY IN RELATION TO THE PENALTY REFERRE D TO IN THIS SECTION. EXPLANATION - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION,- (A) UNDISCLOSED INCOME MEANS- (I) ANY INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR REPRE SENTED, EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEW ELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132, WHICH HAS- (A) NOT BEEN RECORDED ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF SEAR CH IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE RELATING TO SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR ; OR (B) OTHERWISE NOT BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE CHIEF ITA NOS.113 TO 126/2017 :- 9 -: COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE DATE OF THE SEARCH ; OR (II) ANY INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR REPR ESENTED, EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY ANY ENTRY IN RESPECT OF AN EXPENSE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE RELATING TO THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH IS FOUND TO BE FALSE AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE SO HAD THE SEARCH N OT BEEN CONDUCTED ; (B) SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR MEANS THE PREVIOUS YEAR- (I) WHICH HAS ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH, BUT THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1 ) OF SECTION 139 FOR SUCH YEAR HAS NOT EXPIRED BEFORE TH E DATE OF SEARCH AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RE TURN OF INCOME FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR BEFORE THE SAID DATE ; OR (II) IN WHICH SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR IS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION ( B). THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON BOTH ASSESSEES ON 29.09.2008. IT IS N OT DISPUTED THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008- 2009, BEFORE THE DUE DATE WHICH WAS 30.09.2009. T HUS, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 WILL FALL WITHIN LIMB (I) OF EXPLANA TION (B) TO SEC. 271AAA OF THE ACT. SEARCH HAVING BEEN CONDUCTED ON 29.09.2008, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 WILL ALSO BE A SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF LIMB (II) OF EXPLANATION (B) TO SEC. 271AAA OF THE ACT. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SUB-SECTION (1) TO S EC. 271AAA OF THE ACT, THE SAID SECTION APPLIES ONLY TO THE SPECIFIED PREV IOUS YEARS. THE BAR AGAINST PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF TH E ACT ARE ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEARS. THIS IS CLEAR FROM SUB SECTION (3) OF ITA NOS.113 TO 126/2017 :- 10 -: SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO BAR ON THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROCEEDING U/S. 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT, IF OTHE R CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED, IN RESPECT OF ALL OTHER YEARS. THUS TH E FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT LD. ASSES SING OFFICER COULD HAVE LEVIED PENALTY U/S. 271AAA OF THE ACT ONLY FO R ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS, IN OUR OPINION, IS NOT CORRECT. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WITHIN HIS POWERS TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS EXCEPT, ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2008-2009 AND 2009-2010. HOWEVER FOR THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO POWER TO INITIATE OR LEVY PENALTY UN DER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT, DUE TO THE SPECIFIC BAR IN SUB-SECT ION (3) TO SEC. 271AAA OF THE ACT. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT IT WAS MERE MENTI ONING OF A WRONG SECTION, SINCE THE SET OF CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH PE NALTY CAN BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271AAA AND 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT DIFF ER VASTLY. HENCE THE ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) FOR ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, EXCEPT 2008-09 AND 2009-2 010, ARE SET ASIDE AND REMITTED BACK TO THE LD COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR CONSIDERING MERITS OF THE LEVY OF PE NALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. IN SO FAR AS ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2008-09 AND 2009-2010 ARE CONCERNED, WE ARE ONE WITH THE LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS COUL D HAVE BEEN ONLY ITA NOS.113 TO 126/2017 :- 11 -: U/S. 271AAA OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S. 271(1) (C) OF T HE ACT. WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) FOR THESE TWO YEARS. 10. IN THE RESULT, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR BOTH THE ASSESSEES FOR ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS EXCEPT ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AN D 2009-2010, AND REMIT THE APPEALS FOR THESE YEARS BACK TO HIM F OR CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-2010 ORDER OF TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONFIRMED. APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-2004 TO 2007-08 A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, WHEREAS ITS APPEAL FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-2010 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - ( . ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) $ %& / JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ' %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER +$ / CHENNAI , / DATED: 31ST MAY, 2017. KV - '%./ 0/% / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. 1% () / CIT(A) 5. / 45 '%6 / DR 2. '# / RESPONDENT 4. 1% / CIT 6. 57 8$ / GF