DCIT, Yamunanagar V. Shri Navdeep Dhingra, Jagadhari

ITA 1298/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0646 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 271(1)(c); 27; 12

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B , CHANDIGARH , ! ' , $ % & ' ( , ' BEFORE: SMT.DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A M . / ITA NO.1298/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2012-13 & . / ITA NO.1299/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2014-15 THE D.C.I.T., YAMUNA NAGAR CIRCLE, YAMUNA NAGAR. SH.NAVDEEP DHINGRA, # 2279, SECTOR-17, HUDA, JAGADHRI. ./ PAN: AAWPD8237A /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR. DR ! / REVENUE BY : NONE ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 25.02.2019 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.03.2019 /ORDER PER BENCH: BOTH THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA (IN SHORT CIT(A) BOTH DATED 21.8.2018 AND RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE. WH ILE IN ITA NO.1299/CHD/2018 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED IN QUANTUM PROCEEDIN GS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, IN ITA NO.1298/CHD/2018, T HE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF LEVY OF PENA LTY U/S ITA 12 98 & 1299/CHD/2018 A .YS 2012-13 & 2014-15 2 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT TH E ACT) PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND AN APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE APPEALS WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AT THIS JUNCTURE IT WAS FAIRLY CONCED ED BY THE LD.DR THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS W AS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE APEX COURT. TAKING NOTE OF THE SAME, THE ADJOURNMENT APP LICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED AND THE HEARING OF THE APPEALS PROCEEDED WITH. WE SHALL BE FIRST TAKING UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.1299/CHD/2018. ITA NO.1299/CHD/2018(A.Y.2014-15): 3. THE SOLE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT @ 100% OF PROFITS FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS OF THE A SSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION UNDERTAKEN, AFTER AVAILING 100% DEDUCTION OF THE PROFITS FOR THE FIRST FIVE YE ARS. 4. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT OF 100% OF THE PROFIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHIC H WAS THE 8 TH YEAR AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS U NIT. THE ASSESSEE HAD STARTED ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY/OPE RATION ON 27.09.2006 AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT WAS A.Y. 2007-08. HOW EVER ITA 12 98 & 1299/CHD/2018 A .YS 2012-13 & 2014-15 3 AFTER UNDERTAKING SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION DURING THE F.Y. 2011-12, BY WAY OF ADDITION TO THE PLANT AND MACHIN ERY, THE FIRM HAD AGAIN STARTED CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF 100% O F THE PROFIT U/S 80IC OF THE ACT, TREATING A.Y. 2012-13 A S INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD ALREADY CLAI MED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC TO THE EXTENT OF THE 100% OF ELI GIBLE PROFIT FOR FIVE YEARS PERIOD OF A.YS. 2007-08 TO 20 11-12. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD AGAIN CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION AGAINST ELIGIBLE PROFITS IN THE RELEVANT A.Y. 2014- 15, WHICH WAS EIGHTH YEAR OF ITS PRODUCTION, ON ACC OUNT OF UNDERTAKING SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION DURING THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2011-12. THE A.O. EXAMINED THE APPLICABILITY OF PR OVISION OF THE SECTION ON SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AND INITIAL A SSESSMENT YEAR AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTE D TO 25% OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A RE PLY WHICH HAD BEEN REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 2.2 OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY, THE A.O. ELABOR ATED THE MEANING OF INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR, SUBSTANTIAL EXP ANSION AND AVAILABLE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC AS DETAILED IN PAR A 2.4 TO 2.6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A.O. CONCLUDED THA T THE BENEFIT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION WAS AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE EXISTING UNITS I.E. THE UNITS THAT EXISTED AND WERE OPERATIONAL AS ON 07.01.2003 IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM ELIGIBLE FOR 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC FOR FIRST FIV E YEARS AND THAT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION BENEFIT WAS NOT MEA NT FOR THE UNITS THAT CAME INTO BEING ON OR AFTER THE INTR ODUCTION OF THE SCHEME. SO, THE A.O. ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC TO THE ITA 12 98 & 1299/CHD/2018 A .YS 2012-13 & 2014-15 4 EXTENT OF 25% OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS FOR A.Y. 2014-15. THUS, THE EXCESS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF RS.1,47,69,05 3/- WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO TAXABLE INCOME. 5. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.C IT(A) WHO ALLOWED ASSESSEES APPEAL FOLLOWING THE DECISIO N OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ST OVECRAFT INDIA VS. CIT, IN ITA NO.20/2015 & OTHERS DATED 28. 11.2017. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP I N APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. U/S 80IC OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE BENEF IT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN NOT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S CLASSIC BINDING INDUSTRIES IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7208 OF 2018 AND OTHERS DATED 20.08.2018 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT BENEFIT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF AVAILABLE TO THE EXISTING UNITS I.E. THE UNITS THAT EXISTED AND WERE OPERATIONAL ON OR BEFORE 07.01.2003 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD STARTED HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ON 27.09.2006 I.E. AFTER 07.01.2003. 4. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SE T- ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, IT WAS CONCEDED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE ISSUE HAS NOW BEEN SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN BUNC H ITA 12 98 & 1299/CHD/2018 A .YS 2012-13 & 2014-15 5 OF CASES WITH THE LEAD CASE BEING PR.CIT, SHIMLA VS . M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS IN CIVIL NO.1784 OF 2019 DATED 20 .2.2019. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERF ERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROU GH THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS (SUPRA) AND FIND THAT THE HON'BLE APEX C OURT HAS DEALT WITH THE ENTIRE SCHEME OF THE ACT RELATING TO THE RELEVANT SECTION I.E. SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT, AND ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEFINITION OF THE INITIAL A SSESSMENT YEAR CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (V) OF SUB-SECTION(8) OF S ECTION 80IC OF THE ACT CAN LEAD TO A SITUATION WHERE THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR WITHIN THE SAID PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE HON'BLE APEX COU RT AT PARA 19 OF ITS ORDER IS AS UNDER: 19. HAVING EXAMINED THE SCHEME IN THE AFORESAID MA NNER, WE ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEFINITION OF I NITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (V) OF SUB-SECTIO N (8) OF SECTION 80-IC CAN LEAD TO A SITUATION WHERE THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR WITHIN THE SAID PERIO D OF 10 YEARS. AS PER SUB-SECTION (6), CAP IS ON THE 10 ASSE SSMENT YEARS. IT IS NOT ON QUANTUM. WE HAVE ALSO TO KEEP IN MI ND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH SECTION 80-IC WAS ENACTED. THE PUR POSE WAS TO ESTABLISH THE BUSINESS OF THE NATURE SPECIFI ED IN THE SAID PROVISION IN THE SPECIFIED STATES. THIS PROVISI ON WAS, THUS, AIMED AT ENCOURAGING THE UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPR ISES TO ESTABLISH AND SET UP SUCH UNITS IN THE AFORESAID STA TES TO MAKE THEM INDUSTRIALLY ADVANCED STATES AS WELL. UNDOUBTEDLY, THESE ARE DIFFICULT STATES AS MOST OF T HESE STATES FALL IN HILLY AREAS. THEREFORE, COST OF PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION MAY ALSO GO UP. 20. WHEN WE KEEP IN MIND THESE OBJECTIVES FOR WHICH SECTION 80-IC WAS ENACTED, AN IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION WOULD BE TO GRANT 100% DEDUCTION OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS EV EN FROM THE YEAR WHEN THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN THE EXIS TING UNIT. AFTER ALL, THIS SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION INVOLVES GREAT DEAL OF INVESTMENT WHICH HAS TO BE, AT LEAST 50% IN THE PLANT AND MACHINERY, OF THE BOOK VALUE THEREOF BEFORE TAKING DEPRECIATION IN ANY YEAR. WITH AN EXPANSION OF SUCH A NATURE NOT ONLY THERE WOULD BE INCREASE IN PRODUCTION BUT G ENERATION ITA 12 98 & 1299/CHD/2018 A .YS 2012-13 & 2014-15 6 OF MORE EMPLOYMENT AS WELL, WHICH WOULD BENEFIT THE LOCA L POPULACE. IT IS FOR THIS REASON, CARRYING OUT SUBSTANT IAL EXPANSION BY ITSELF IS TREATED AS INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT WOULD MEAN THAT EVEN WHEN AN OLD UNIT COMPLETES SUBSTA NTIAL EXPANSION, SUCH A UNIT ALSO BECOMES ENTITLED TO AVAIL TH E BENEFIT OF SECTION 80-IC. IF THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATURE, WE SEE NO REASON AS TO WHY 100% DEDUCTIO N OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS BE NOT ALLOWED TO EVEN THOSE UNITS WHO HAD AVAILED THIS DEDUCTION ON SETTING UP OF A NEW UNIT A ND HAVE NOW INVESTED HUGE AMOUNT WITH SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION O F THOSE UNITS. 9. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT THEREAFTER CONCLUDED A NE WLY SET UP UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE IN THE STATE OF HI MACHAL PRADESH WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION @ 100% OF TH E ACT ITS PROFITS FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS AND EVEN THEREAFTE R IN THE CASE OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS CARRIED OUT BY IT WITH THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS UND ERTAKEN BECOMING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. THAT IN ANY C ASE THE PERIOD OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT WOULD NOT E XCEED 10 YEARS. THE CONCLUSION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AT PARA 24 OF ITS ORDER IS AS UNDER: 24. THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION LEADS US TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS: (A) JUDGMENT DATED 20TH AUGUST, 2018 IN CLASSIC BINDINGINDUSTRIES CASE OMITTED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE DEFINITION INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR CONTAINED IN SECTION 80-IC IT SELF AND INSTEAD BASED ITS CONCLUSION ON THE DEFINITION CONTA INED IN SECTION 80-IB, WHICH DOES NOT APPLY IN THESE CASES. T HE DEFINITIONS OF INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE TWO SE CTIONS, VIZ. SECTIONS 80-IB AND 80-IC ARE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT. TH E DEFINITION OF INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER SECTION 80 -IC HAS MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT DOES NOT LAY DOWN THE CORRECT LAW. (B) AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE WHICH HAD SET UP A NEW UNIT BETWEEN 7TH JANUARY, 2003 AND 1ST APRIL, 2012 IN STATE OF HIMACHALPRADESH OF THE NATURE MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (II) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80-IC, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO D EDUCTION AT THE RATE OF 100% OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS FOR FI VE ASSESSMENT YEARS COMMENCING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSMEN T YEAR. FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, THE ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTIO N WOULD BE 25% (OR 30% WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY) OF T HE PROFITS AND GAINS. ITA 12 98 & 1299/CHD/2018 A .YS 2012-13 & 2014-15 7 (C) HOWEVER, IN CASE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS CARRIED OU T AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (IX) OF SUB-SECTION (8) OF SECTION 8 0-IC BY SUCH AN UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE, WITHIN THE AFORESA ID PERIOD OF 10 YEARS, THE SAID PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SUBS TANTIAL EXPANSION IS UNDERTAKEN WOULD BECOME INITIAL ASSESSMEN T YEAR, AND FROM THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE SHA LL BEEN ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTIONS OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS. (D) SUCH DEDUCTION, HOWEVER, WOULD BE FOR A TOTAL PERIOD OF 10 YEARS, AS PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (6). FOR EXAMPLE, IF T HE EXPANSION IS CARRIED OUT IMMEDIATELY, ON THE COMPLETION OF FIRST FIVE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 100% DEDU CTION AGAIN FOR THE NEXT FIVEYEARS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS UNDERTAKEN, SAY, IN 8TH YEAR BY AN ASS ESSEE SUCH AN ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTION F OR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS, DEDUCTION @ 25% OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS AND @ 100% AGAIN FROM 8 TH YEAR AS THIS YEAR BECOMES INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ONCE AGAIN HOWE VER, THIS 100% DEDUCTION WOULD BE FOR REMAINING THREE YEA RS, I.E., 8TH, 9TH AND 10TH ASSESSMENT YEARS. 25. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. LIKEWISE, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE H EREBY ALLOWED. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS NOW SETTLED LAW TH AT EVEN A NEW UNDERTAKING WHICH HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF ITS ELIGIBLE PROFITS @ 100% THEREOF FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION @ 100% OF ITS PROFITS THEREAFTER ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION UNDERTAKEN BY IT. 11. SINCE AS PER THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSES CLAIM OF 100% DEDUCTION OF ITS ELIGIBLE PROFITS IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR WAS UNDISPUTEDLY BASED ON SUBSTANTIA L EXPANSION UNDERTAKEN BY IT IN F.Y. 2011-12, THE SAM E, WE HOLD, WAS AS PER LAW, BEING THE THIRD YEAR FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y 2012-13, WHEN THE SUBSTAN TIAL EXPANSION WAS UNDERTAKEN. WE, THEREFORE, SEE NO RE ASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). THE GROUND S OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE THEREFORE, DISMISSED. ITA 12 98 & 1299/CHD/2018 A .YS 2012-13 & 2014-15 8 12. IN EFFECT TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1298/CHD/2018. ITA NO.1298/CHD/2018(A.Y.2012-13): 13. THE SOLE ISSUE RELATES TO PENALTY LEVIED U/S 27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 14. BRIEF STATED ,THE IMPUGNED YEAR WAS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION A ND TREATING THE SAME AS INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD C LAIMED 100% DEDUCTION OF THE PROFITS OF ITS ELIGIBLE UNIT U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THE SAME WAS RESTRICTED TO 25% BY THE A.O NOTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTIO N FOR FIVE YEARS BEGINNING FROM A.Y. 2007-08 AND THE RE MAINING AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED WHICH WAS RS.1,78,76,22 4/-, WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY U/ S 271(1)(C) WAS INITIATED AND LEVIED ON THE SAME AMOU NTING TO RS.55,00,720/-. 15. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS.. ITO IN ITA NO.326/CHD/2015 DATED 8.10.2015 IN WHICH IDENTI CAL PENALTY WAS DELETED FINDING THE ISSUE DEBATABLE. 16. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY ADJUDICATED IDENTICAL ISS UE PERTAINING TO A.Y 2014-15 ABOVE, IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE CLAIM OF 100% DEDUCTION OF PROFITS U/S 80IC OF THE ACT ON SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION UNDERTAKEN, WAS AS PER ITA 12 98 & 1299/CHD/2018 A .YS 2012-13 & 2014-15 9 LAW, FOLLOWING THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THIS REGARD, IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT, SHIMLA VS. M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS IN CIVIL NO.1784 OF 2019 DATED 20 .2.2019, THERE REMAINS NO REASON FOR LEVYING PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(A) DELETING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS55,00, 720/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 17. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- $ % & ' ( (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) , ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER * ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ /DATED: 27 TH MARCH, 2019 * * &) *+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $ 0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /3 5# / GUARD FILE &) ' / BY ORDER, ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR