SHRI SHANKAR LAL SAINI, Jaipur V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, Jaipur

ITA 1285/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2552 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KARNI DAN
• Keywords: Valuation report; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 54B; 54F; 131

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,A JAIPUR JH JESK LH0 KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PA L RAO, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1285/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI SHANKAR LAL SAINI PLOT NO. 480, SHANTI NAGAR, NEAR KARNI MATA TEMPLE, KHATIPURA ROAD, JAIPUR - 302006 CUKE VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AQGPS 4878 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1341/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. SHRI SHANKAR LAL SAINI PLOT NO. 480, SHANTI NAGAR, NEAR KARNI MATA TEMPLE, KHATIPURA ROAD, JAIPUR-302006 LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AQGPS 4878 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI KARNI DAN (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 27/05/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18/06/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER ITA NO. 1285 &1341/JP/2018 SHRI SHANKAR LAL SAINI VS. DCIT 2 PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2018 OF LD. CIT (A), JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS AS UNDER: - 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 W ITH REFERENCE TO AMOUNT OF RS. 59,04,000/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES TO AMEND, ALTER AND MODIFY A NY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS. 4. THE APPROPRIATE COST BE AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 ARE REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIV IDUAL AND JOINTLY WITH HIS BROTHER SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE RAMSI NGHPURA, TEHSIL SANGANER ON 28.12.2010 AND 09.02.2011 FOR A TOTAL C ONSIDERATION OF RS. 5,66,78,800/- IN WHICH THE ASSESSEES SHARE COME TO RS. 2,78,39,400/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INC OME ON 21.02.2013 DECLARING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 64,61,650/- AFTER CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B AND 54F OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) BY MAKING THE ADDITIONS I NTER ALIA ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN CASH OF RS. ITA NO. 1285 &1341/JP/2018 SHRI SHANKAR LAL SAINI VS. DCIT 3 59,04,000/-. THE OTHER ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIONS 54B & 54F OF THE ACT WERE DELETED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM APPEAL AND THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT . IN THE MEAN TIME, THE AO INITIATED THE PROCEEDING U /S 271(1)(C) AND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS. 55,83,424/- VIDE ORDER DA TED 31.03.2017. THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDIS CLOSED SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN CASH. THE PENALTY LEVIED IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUC TION U/S 54B & 54F OF THE ACT WERE DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS THOSE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED BY THIS TRIBUNAL AND FURTHER CONFIRMED BY T HE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THUS THE ISSUE IN THE PR ESENT APPEAL IS ONLY REGARDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN RESPECT OF UNDISCL OSED SALE CONSIDERATION. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUPPRESSED ANY FACT REGARDING THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT ADMITTED THE RECEIPT OF CASH OF RS 59,04,000/- ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT AWARE ABOUT THE ITA NO. 1285 &1341/JP/2018 SHRI SHANKAR LAL SAINI VS. DCIT 4 INTRICACIES OF INCOME TAX ACT AND COMPUTED THE CAPI TAL GAIN BY TAKING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEE D. THIS IS BONAFIDE MISTAKE AS THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS COMPUTED BY THE TAX CONSULTANT BASED ON SALE DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE, CASH CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD. AR HAS REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED THE SATISFACTION FOR INITI ATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AT PAGE 3 AND 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHER EAS IN PARA 3 OF THE PENALTY ORDER THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE NON DISCLOSURE OF SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN CASH IS CONCEALMENT OF IN COME. THUS, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WHETHER IT IS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOM E OR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION , HE HAS RELIED UPON THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION IN CASE OF HPCL ENERGY MI TTAL LTD. VS. ACIT (2018) 169 DTR 1 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HA S HELD THAT IF A CLEAR CUT CHARGE IN THE PENALTY NOTICE OR THE PENAL TY ORDER IS THAT OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME BUT IT TURNS OUT TO BE A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOM E OR VICE VERSA THEN ALSO THE PENALTY ORDER CANNOT LEGALLY STAND. THE LD . AR OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 1285 &1341/JP/2018 SHRI SHANKAR LAL SAINI VS. DCIT 5 HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE IN HAND NON DISCLOSU RE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN CASH OF RS. 59,04,000/- IS A CLEAR CUT CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS ACCEPTED BY THE AO AT PARA 3 OF THE PENALTY ORDER BUT STILL THE AO HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, PE NALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS LEGALLY NOT SUSTAINABLE. 3.1 ALTERNATIVELY, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS S UBMITTED THAT IT IS A CASE OF BONAFIDE MISTAKE IN FILING THE RETURN IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT AND SALE DEED TO THE COUNSEL. THE CASH AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT B UT THE COUNSEL WHILE PREPARING THE RETURN HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER T HE SAME AND THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT CONVERSANT WITH THE TECHNICALITI ES OF FILING THE RETURN AS PREPARED BY THE COUNSEL AND THUS, THERE WAS BONA FIDE MISTAKE IN NOT OFFERING SUCH AMOUNT FOR TAX WHICH WAS SUO MOTO STA TED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN HE WAS ENQUIRED ABOUT THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THUS, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR SUCH BONAFIDE MISTAKE THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE APPRISED THE TAX CONSULTANT ALL THE CORRECT FACTS ABOUT THE SALE CONSIDERATION BUT ONLY WHEN THE AO H AS EXAMINED THE ITA NO. 1285 &1341/JP/2018 SHRI SHANKAR LAL SAINI VS. DCIT 6 ASSESSEE ABOUT THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE REVEALED THE SOURCE OF THE SAME AS SALE CONSIDERATI ON RECEIVED IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED THRO UGH CHEQUE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. THEREFORE, IT IS A CLEA R CASE THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS THE AO HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 3 OF THE PENALTY ORDER. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THREE DISALLOWANCE S WHICH FALLS UNDER THE DIFFERENT LIMBS OF DEFAULT AND CHARGES BEING FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS WELL AS CONCEALMENT OF PAR TICULARS OF INCOME THEREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED IN RESPECT OF DISALLO WANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B & 54F OF THE ACT FALLS IN THE CAT EGORY OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHEREAS THE NON DI SCLOSURE OF CASH SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT IN THE INQUIRY MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO DETECTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION IN CASH OF RS. 59,0 4,000/- WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER, THE AO HAS ALSO ITA NO. 1285 &1341/JP/2018 SHRI SHANKAR LAL SAINI VS. DCIT 7 DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B AND 54F O F THE ACT AS THERE ARE VIOLATION OF SOME PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 54B & 54F FOR NON DEPOSITING THE AMOUNT IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT B EFORE INVESTING THE SAME FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AND PURCHASE OF AGRI CULTURAL LAND. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED IN RESPECT OF AL L THREE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE FACTS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF D EDUCTION U/S 54B & 54F OF THE ACT DUE TO NON DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT IN THE CAPITAL GAIN MAY IF AT ALL FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF CHARGE OF FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BECAUSE THE CLAIM WAS NOT FOU ND TO BE BOGUS OR FALSE BUT IT WAS ONLY DUE TO NON DEPOSIT OF THE AMO UNT IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT. FURTHER THE SAID DISALLOWANCE WAS DEL ETED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND UPHELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NO MORE AN ISSUE BEFORE US IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDING. AS REGARDS THE NON DISCLOSURE OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN CA SH, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE NON DISCLOSURE OF THE SAM E IN THE RETURN OF THE INCOME AND IT WAS DETECTED BY THE AO ONLY DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SALE CONS IDERATION RECEIVED IN CASH WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL BEFOR E US IS CLEARLY A CASE ITA NO. 1285 &1341/JP/2018 SHRI SHANKAR LAL SAINI VS. DCIT 8 OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HENCE, AT THE TIME OF RECORDING THE SATISFACTION THE AO HAS CLEARLY SET OUT OF THE CHARGES OF MAJOR DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 5 4B &54F WHICH FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, SO FAR AS THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY T HE AO IN VIEW OF SECTION 271(1B) OF THE ACT ONCE THE AO HAS CLEARLY RECORDED THE SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE SAME SHALL BE DEEMED TO CONSTITUTE A SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT. HENCE, SO FAR AS THE SATISFACTION OF RECORD BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THERE IS N O INFIRMITY. AS REGARDS THE CERTAINTY OF CHARGE SINCE THE PENALTY W AS INITIATED IN RESPECT OF ALL THREE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO OUT OF WHICH SOME ADDITIONS FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME AND OTHER ONE WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROCEEDING B EFORE US FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. T HEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF DEFINITE CHARGE BEING FURNISHING OF INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME DOES NOT ARISE. IT IS A CASE OF DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FALLING UNDER BOTH LIMBS. IN THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THE AO H AS CLEARLY MADE OUT IN A CASE IN PARA 3 BY HOLDING THAT THE NON DISCLOS URE OF SALE ITA NO. 1285 &1341/JP/2018 SHRI SHANKAR LAL SAINI VS. DCIT 9 CONSIDERATION OF RS. 59,04,000/- RECEIVED IN CASH I S CLEARLY CONCEALMENT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS GIVEN ITS FINDING IN PARA 3 AS UNDER:- 3) DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD TWO PROPERTIES (I) LAND SITUATED AT RAMSIN GHPURA (DHOLAI), TEHSIL-SANGANER, KHASRA NO. 165 AND 166, TOTAL LAND MEASURING 0.82 HECTARE ON 28/12/2010 TO M/S KR ISHNA BALRAM RESIDENCY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR JOINTLY WITH HIS BROTHER SHRI SEDHU RAM AND SHOWN TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,00, 00,000/-. (II) LAND SITUATED AT RAMSINGHPURA(DHOLAI), TEHSIL- SANG ANER, KHASRA NO.163 LAND MEASURING 0.70 HECTARE ON 09/02/2011 TO M/S KRISHNA BALRAM RESIDENCY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR JOINTLY WITH HIS BROTHER SHRI SEDHU RAM AND SHOWN TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2,56,78,800/- . ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 64,61,650/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 54B RS. 1,60,00,000/- AND U/S 54F RS.52,00,000/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING TH E AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CALCULATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THE CALCULATION OF LTCG AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER:- SALE CONSIDERATION I.E. SHARE OF ASSESSEE SALE RS. 5,56,78,800/2= =RS. 2,78,39,400/- LESS:- INDEX COST 1970 I.E. 25000*711/100 =RS. 1,7 7,750/- CAPITAL GAIN = RS. 2,76,61,650/- LESS:- (A) AGRICULTURE LAND PURCHASE ON 19/12/2010 U/S 54B = RS/ 1,60,000/- (B) CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE U/S 54F = RS .52,00,000/- TOTAL DEDUCTION U/S 54B &54F = RS. 2,12,00,000/- NET CAPITAL GAIN = RS. 64,61,550/- ITA NO. 1285 &1341/JP/2018 SHRI SHANKAR LAL SAINI VS. DCIT 10 DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DED UCTION U/S 54B RS.1,60,00,000/- ON PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND ON 19/12/2012 AND U/S 54F RS.52,00,000/- ON CONSTRUCTION OF RESID ENTIAL HOUSE. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A AGRICULTURE LAND ON 19/12/ 2012 KHASRA NO.3541 SITUATED AT VILLAGE TIGARIYA, TEHSIL CHOMU MEASURING 3.78 HECTARE LAND FOR TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,5 0,0,00,000/- FROM MR. JAGDISH AND OTHERS. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCU RRED STAMP DUTY CHARGES OF RS.80,000/- AND REGISTRATION CHARGE S ETC. OF RS.6,87,190/-. REGARDING CLAIM UNDER SECTION 54F OF RS. 52,00,000/ -, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A COPY OF VALUATION REPORT F ROM REGISTERED VALUER IN WHICH TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION VALUE OF THE HOUSE CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DETERMINED AT RS. 47 ,00,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 52,00,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF ALL ADD ITIONS ON WHICH BOTH THE LIMBS WERE ATTRACTED THEN WE DO NOT SEE ANY ERR OR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. TH E DECISION RELIED UPON THE LD. AR WILL NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE. 5.1. AS REGARDS THE ALTERNATE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE, WE FIND THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN CAS H CANNOT BE DETECTED FROM THE SALE DOCUMENTS UNTIL AND UNLESS THE ASSESS EE WHO WAS KNOWING A TRUE FACTS DISCLOSED THE SAME TO HIS TAX CONSULTANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. IT IS NOT TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT THIS FACT TO THE KNOW LEDGE OF THE TAX ITA NO. 1285 &1341/JP/2018 SHRI SHANKAR LAL SAINI VS. DCIT 11 CONSULTANT THEREFORE, SIMPLY HANDING OVER THE SALE DEED TO THE TAX CONSULTANT WOULD NOT DISCHARGE THE ASSESSEE OF HIS OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE THE TRUE AND CORRECT FACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT OR SUBSTANCE IN THIS PLEA OF THE LD. AR. HENCE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SUS TAINING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS UPHELD. 6. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS AS UNDER:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE P ENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON RS. 43,67,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 54B AND 54F OF RS. 2.12 CORES DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DELETION OF QUANTUM OF RS. 2.12 CRORE S BY THE HIGH COURT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THEAPEX COURT THROUGH SLP? 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS THE LD. AR A ND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUT E THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/ S 54B &54F OF THE ACT WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THA T THE SAID ADDITION ITSELF WAS DELETED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL AND THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS ALREADY DISMI SSED THE REVENUES APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THU S THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE ONLY TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIV E TILL THE MATTER IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL PROCEEDING IS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. ITA NO. 1285 &1341/JP/2018 SHRI SHANKAR LAL SAINI VS. DCIT 12 HOWEVER, WE FIND ONCE THE ADDITION ITSELF WAS DETEC TED AND THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT THEN THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE THE APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETION OF PEN ALTY BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS IN CASE THE REVENUE SUCCEED BEFORE THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS THE PENALTY PROCEEDING CAN AGAIN BE INITIATED ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUES IS DISMISS ED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/06/2019. SD/- SD/- JESK LH0 KEKZ FOT; IKY JKO (RAMESH. C. SHARMA) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 18/06/2019. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SHANKAR LAL SAINI, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 1285 & 1341/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR