Karubha Kherajbha & Co., Dwarka V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Dwarka

ITA 129/RJT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7085 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN KUMAR VERMA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 273B; 143(3); 27

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 11 , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SR.NO. ITA NO. AND ASSTT.YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1-2 ITA NO. 129/RJT/2018 2013-2014 AND NO.190/RJT/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 KARUBHA KHERAJBHA & CO. 10, CONTRACTOR AREA, MITHAPUR, DIST. DWARKA. PAN: AAGFK5335G INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), DWARKA 3. ITA NO. NO. 191/RJT/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 SHRI JAIVEER KHERAJBHA KER, NR. SBI, SURAJ KARADI, ASHAPURA COLONY, DIST. DWARKA. PAN: BQHPK2838N -DO- 4. ITA NO. 199/RJT/2018 A.Y.2014-15 TEJABHA LAKHUBHA & CO., 10, CONTRACTOR AREA, MITHAPUR, DIST. DWARKA PAN: AACFT2446F -DO- ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPON D ENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI CHETAN AGARWAL , A. R REVENUE BY : SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR VERMA , SR. D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 09/04/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/04/2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH ITA NOS.129,190,191 & 199/AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2 PAGE 2 OF 11 THE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AT THE INSTAN CE OF THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AHMEDABAD, [LD.CIT(A) IN SHORT] ARISING IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED UNDER S. 271B OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE- IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') RELEVANT TO ASS ESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2013- 14 & 2014-15. SINCE ISSUES ARE EITHER INTER-CONNECTED OR COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE DISPOSE OF ALL THESE APPEAL S BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: ITA NO.129/RJT/2018 FOR A.Y 2013-14. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACT IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.1,50,000/- IMPOSED BY LD.AO U/S. 271B OF THE ACT. ITA NO.190/RJT/2018 FOR A.Y 2014-15. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACT IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.1,50,000/- IMPOSED BY LD.AO U/S. 271B OF THE ACT. ITA NO.191/RJT/2018 FOR A.Y 2014-15. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACT IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.91,420/- IMPOSED BY LD.AO U/S. 271B O F THE ACT ITA NO.199/RJT/2018 FOR A.Y 2014-15. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACT IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.1,50,000/- IMPOSED BY LD.AO U/S. 271B OF THE ACT ITA NOS.129,190,191 & 199/AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. 3 PAGE 3 OF 11 FIRST, WE TAKE UP ITA NO. 129/RJT/2018 PERTAINING T O AY 2013-14 AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE LEAD CASE. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CI T (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 1,50,000/- IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONTRACT WORK. THE AO DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS REQUIRED TO GET ITS ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S 44AB OF TH E ACT AS THE SALES/TURNOVER OF IT EXCEEDED FROM RS. 100/- LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY, T HE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO FILE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM NO. 3CD WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT AS SPECIFIED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT I.E.3 0 TH SEPTEMBER 2013. 2.3 HOWEVER THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FI LED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND AUDIT REPORT AFTER THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED U/S 1 39(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT I.E.05-05-2014 ALMOST AFTER A GAP OF 7 MONTHS 5 DAY S. 2.4 THE AO ACCORDINGLY IMPOSED THE PENALTY U/S 271B OF THE ACT WHICH COMES TO RS. 1,50,000/- (I.E. 0.5% OF TOTAL SALES/ TURNOVER OF A SUM OF RS. 6,49,13,431 = RS. 3,24,657/- SUBJECT TO MAXIMUM OF RS. 1,50,000/-) ON ACCOUNT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVIS ION OF THE ACT. 3. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT (A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME AND TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS UPLOADED ON INCOME TAX WEBSITE AFT ER THE DUE DATE ONLY ITA NOS.129,190,191 & 199/AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. 4 PAGE 4 OF 11 BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL DEFAULT AS PAN OF IT WAS NOT R EGISTERED ON INCOME TAX WEBSITE. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 273B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IM POSED IF THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID NON-COMPLIANCE. 4. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT (A) DISREGARDED THE SUBMISSI ON AND HELD THAT THE TECHNICAL DEFAULT REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS GENE RAL AND WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE LD. CIT (A) ACCORDINGLY CO NFIRMED THE PENALTY U/S 271B IMPOSED BY THE AO. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGES 1 TO 55 AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER: NAME AY PENALTY DUE DATE OF REPORT FILING DATE OF E- FILING KARUBHA KHERAJBHA & CO. 2013-14 1,50,000 30.09.2013 05.05.2014 KARUBHA KHERAJBHA & CO. 2014-15 1,50,000 30.11.2014 30.01.2015 TEJABHA LAKHUBHA & CO. 2014-15 1,50,000 30.11.2014 26.01.2015 JAIVEER KER 2014-15 91,420 30.11.2014 31.10.2015 1. ALL APPELLANT ARE AT VILLAGE : MITHAPUR, TALUKA : DWARKA, DISTRICT : JAMNAGAR AT RELEVANT TIME, WHICH IS REMOTE AREA. ITA NOS.129,190,191 & 199/AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. 5 PAGE 5 OF 11 2. DUE TO TECHNICAL GLITCH IN REGISTERING PAN AND APPR OVING AUDIT REPORT UPLOADED BY AUDITOR, TAX AUDIT REPORT WERE UPLOADED IN INCOME TAX WEBSITE BELATEDLY. DETAILED SUBMISSION WERE MADE BEFORE LD . AO AND CIT(A), COPY ENCLOSED HEREWITH. 3. THIS BEING REASONABLE CAUSE, WE KINDLY REQUEST YOUR HONOURS TO DELETE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S.271B OF THE ACT. 4. YOUR HONOURS MAY KINDLY APPRECIATE THAT ALL APPELLA NTS WERE SCRUTINIZE U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, NO MAJOR ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN ASSESSMENT. NO LOSS IS CAUSED TO REVENUE IN UPLOADING OF AUDIT REPORT B ELATEDLY. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE ATTACHED HEREWITH. 5. WE RELY UPON FOLLOWING SIMILAR DECISIONS: A. GOVIND GARG VS. ITO (2017) TAXPUB 1623, JAIPUR BENCH B. RAJKUMARI BARFNA VS. ITO (2016) TAXPUB 5142, JA IPUR BENCH C. AJMER AILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LTD VS. ACIT (2017) TAXPUB 1590, JAIPUR BENCH D. HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA 197 0 AIR SC 253. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ARE NOT PLAUSIBLE. THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO IMMUNITY UNDER SECTION 27 3B OF THE ACT. 7. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUT HORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO GET ITS ACCOUNT AUDITED UNDER PROVISION OF SECTION 44AB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AND SUBSEQUENTLY AUDIT REPORT IN THE PRESCRIBE D PERFORMA-FORM 3CD WAS TO BE UPLOADED ON THE INCOME TAX WEBSITE BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, I.E., 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2013. 8.1 HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE THE AO IMPOSED A P ENALTY FOR A SUM OF RS. ITA NOS.129,190,191 & 199/AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. 6 PAGE 6 OF 11 1,50,000/- U/S 271B OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (A) SUB SEQUENTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 8.2 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT SAFEG UARD THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PENALTY IF THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THUS THE ONUS LIES ON THE AS SESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE AS DISCUSSE D ABOVE. FROM THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT THE ASS ESSEE TO FILE THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN STEPS AS DETAILED U NDER: I. CA TO REGISTER AS A TAX PROFESSIONAL, II. THE ASSESSEE WILL ADD CA TO HIS PROFILE, III. CA WILL UPLOAD THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, IV. THE ASSESSEE WILL APPROVE THE FORM FILED BY CA. 8.3 IT IS ALSO THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT IT WAS THE 1 ST YEAR WHEN IT WAS MADE MANDATORY TO UPLOAD THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ONLINE. TH EREFORE, WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE WELL AWARE OF THE PROC EDURES FOR UPLOADING THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ONLINE. 8.4 BEING THE 1 ST YEAR OF FILING TAX AUDIT REPORT ONLINE, WE ARE TAK ING THE SYMPATHETIC VIEW AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTING THE AO T O DELETE THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE ACT IN THE INTEREST OF TH E JUSTICE & FAIR PLAY. 8.5 WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE SUB STANTIAL COMPLIANCE BY FILING THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN WHICH NO SPECIFIC DE FECT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE ITA NOS.129,190,191 & 199/AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. 7 PAGE 7 OF 11 WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO PALPABLE PREJU DICE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE. REGARDING THIS, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM T HE ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF GOVIND GARG, PROP . GARG ENTERPRISES V/S ITO REPORTED IN 2017 TAXPUB(DT) 1623(JP-TRIB) WHERE IN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271B --DELAY IN FILING TAX AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTION 44ABREASONABLE CAUSE--UNLOADING DUE TO TECHNICAL PR OBLEM --WHERE AO IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271B FOR NON-FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE CAUSE THAT, ASSESSEE HAD BONA FIDELY BELIEVED THAT AUDIT REPORT WAS UPLOADED BY CA, BUT DUE TO SOME TECHNICA L PROBLEM THE SAME DID NOT GET UPLOADED.--ASSESSEE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL AO IMPOSED PE NALTY UNDER SECTION 271B FOR NON-FILING OF AUDIT REPORT AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTIO N 44AB. ASSESSEE'S CASE WAS THAT AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTION 44AB WAS FILED BY CA, BU T DUE TO SOME TECHNICAL PROBLEM IT WAS NOT UPLOADED. HELD: ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN BONA FIDE REASON THAT CA HAD AUDITED, HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO UPLOADED THE SAME. ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT AUDIT REPORT HAD BEEN U PLOADED IN THE SYSTEM DEVELOPED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IMPOSED B Y THE AUTHORITIES UNDER SECTION 271B ON THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. WE ALSO FIND SUPPORT AND THE GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDG MENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED V. STATE OF ORISSA REPORTED IN 83 ITR 26 (SC) HAS HELD THAT THE PENALT Y SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE ASSESSEE ACTED DELIBERATELY. THE RELEVAN T EXTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT READS AS UNDER : OBLIGATION IS THE RESULT OF A QUASI- CRIMINAL PROC EEDING, AND PENALTY WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY OBLIGED, EIT HER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR WAS GUILTY OF CONDUCT CONTUMACIOUS OR DIS HONEST, OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS OBLIGATION. PENALTY WILL NOT ALSO BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. WHETHER PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION OF T HE AUTHORITY TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIALLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVA NT CIRCUMSTANCES. EVEN IF A MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRIBED, THE AUTHORITY COMPET ENT TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENALTY, WHEN TH ERE IS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR WHERE THE BR EACH FLOWS FROM A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN TH E MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. ITA NOS.129,190,191 & 199/AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. 8 PAGE 8 OF 11 8.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO MALA-FIDE INTENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO DELAY THE FILING OF THE TAX AUDIT REPOR T. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271B I N THE GIVEN FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE RE VERSE THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE THE GROUND OF APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. NOW WE TAKE UP ITA NO. 190/RJT/2018 PERTAINING TO A Y 2014-15 6. THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE IMPUGNED APPEAL UND ER CONSIDERATION OR IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED IN ITA NO.129/RJT/2018 WHICH HAS BEEN ELABORATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. THE LIMITED DIFFERENCES ARE ABOUT THE DELAY IN FILING THE TAX AUDIT REPORT/ INC OME TAX RETURN AND THE 2 ND YEAR OF FILING ONLINE RETURN MANDATORILY. 7. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED THE DE LAY IN FILING THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ON THE SAME REASONS AS DISCUSSED IN IT A NO.129/RJT/2018. THE REASONS INTER-ALIA INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UN DER THE BONA FIDE BELIEVE THAT IT HAS TO REGISTER ON THE WEBSITE OF THE INCOM E TAX AND THE FACT WAS TELEPHONICALLY CONVEYED TO THE OFFICE OF THE CONSUL TANT. AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE DELAY OF FILING TAX AUDIT REPO RT IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONSULTANT. 8.3 THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR THAT THE DELAY WAS O N ACCOUNT OF THE CONSULTANT WAS ALSO NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. MOREOVER, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESS EE, I.E., THE ASSESSEE FILED THE TAX AUDIT REPORT BUT WITH A DELAY OF 2 MONTHS O NLY. ITA NOS.129,190,191 & 199/AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. 9 PAGE 9 OF 11 WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALSO FRAMED UN DER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC. IT IS ALSO N OT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE AUDIT UNDER 44AB OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED AF TER THE DUE DATE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. WE ARE ALSO CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS THE S ECOND YEAR OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN IT COMMITTED THE DEFAULT IN THE COMPLYING OF T HE PROVISION OF FILING THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THE ASSESSEE WAS TO FILE THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ON 30-11-2014 BUT FILED ON 31-1-2015 FOR THE AY 2014-15 WITH THE DELAY OF TWO MONTHS ONLY. THE QUESTION HERE ARISES WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS A SERIAL DEFAULTER IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION ACT. REGAR DING THIS, WE NOTE THAT THE FIRST NOTICE FOR THE AY 2013-14 UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 11-3-2016 WHEREAS THE TIME LIMIT TO FILE THE TAX AU DIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION (2 ND YEAR) WAS 30-11-2014. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE SECTION 271B OF THE ACT WHICH WAS INITIATED MUCH LATER AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE DESERVES THE SYMPATHETIC VIEW AS TAKEN IN THE AY 2013-14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND CONSIDERING THE LENGTH OF DELAY, WE REVERSE THE ORDER THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE THE GROUND OF APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. COMING TO THE ITA NOS. 191 AND 199/RJT/2018 PERTAIN ING TO 2014-15 9. AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT THE FACTS INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED IN ITA 129/RJT/ 201, 190/RJT/2019 THEREFORE ITA NOS.129,190,191 & 199/AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. 10 PAGE 10 OF 11 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE BOTH THE ORDER AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE ACT. HENCE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 10. IN THE COMBINED RESULT ITA NOS. 129/RJT/2018, 1 90/RJT/2018, 191/RJT/2018, AND 199/RJT/2018 FOR A.Y 2013-14 AND 2014-15 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30/04/20 19 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MS MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/04/2019 MANISH / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ,-,./0,, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. ! ( ) / THE CIT(A)-JAMNAGAR 5. $%&'' , / DR, ITAT, 6. &)*+ / GUARD FILE. ITA NOS.129,190,191 & 199/AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. 11 PAGE 11 OF 11 1. DATE OF DICTATION : 25-04-2019 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER - 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S. - 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. : 30-04-2019 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 30-04-19. 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER