ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Diebold Systems P Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1307/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58146 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Assessee Lawyers: MILIND S KOTHARI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1307(MDS)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-I(4), CHENNAI-34. VS. M/S. DIEBOLD SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., 28/3, 2 ND AND 3 RD FLOOR, MONTIETH ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI 8. PAN AAACD 3206 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI ANIRUDH RAI, IRS, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & KEB RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MILIND S.KOTHARI, CA DATE OF HEARING : 5 TH MARCH, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 TH MARCH, 2012 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2005-06. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE PENALTY ITA 1307/11 :- 2 -: ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS)-III AT CHENNAI DATED 08.04.2011. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRAD ING IN AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINES (ATM), NETWORK CASH DISPE NSERS INCLUDING SOFTWARE SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE HAS RETU RNED A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 13,09,04,130/-, FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A SUM OF ` 1,30,28,406/- WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY WHICH THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED TO ` 14,71,68,738/-. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS INVENTORY WRI TTEN OFF. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS HAD CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF WRITE OFF REFLECTED IN THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WA S EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THAT THIS AMOUNT OF WRITTEN OFF REPRESENTED THE MACHINES BROUGHT BACK BY THE ASSESS EE ON BUY- BACK SCHEME AND ALSO SOME AMOUNT ON DEFECTIVE AND O BSOLETE ITEM. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ATMS ARE PURCHASED ONLY BY BANKS ITA 1307/11 :- 3 -: AND WHEREVER BANKS DECLINED TO TAKE DELIVERY OF MAC HINES ON THE GROUND OF TECHNICAL DEFECTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO TA KE BACK THE MACHINES BY ASSIGNING THE BUY-BACK PRICE ALMOST EQU AL TO THE SALE PRICE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE A TOUGH STAND WITH THE BANKS, AS THEY ARE THE ONLY CUSTOMERS OF T HE ASSESSEE. ANYHOW, THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE W ERE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE T O THE TOTAL INCOME. 4. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME REASONS IN MORE DETAIL ED MANNER BEFORE HIM SO AS TO ESTABLISH THAT NO INACCURATE PA RTICULARS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL ANY AMOUNT OF INCOME LIABLE FOR TAXATION. BUT THE DETAILED EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE FOLLOWING MAIN GROU NDS : 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM ON DEFECTIVE ATMS, IT S SALE AND OFFER AND ITS BUY-BACK. ITA 1307/11 :- 4 -: 2. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUDITORS HAS EXPLAI NED ANY SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR FIXING THE WRITTEN DOWN VA LUE OF THE ATMS AT ` 1,30,000/- PER UNIT. 3. THE ASSESSE IS NOT CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING A PRA CTICE OF WRITE OFF OF INVENTORY ON THE BASIS OF REALIZABLE V ALUE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT MADE ANY SUCH WRITE OFF IN ANY OF THE EARLIER ASSES SMENT YEARS IN THE PAST. THUS, THE WRITE OFF OF INVENTOR Y IS CLEARLY A RUSE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TAXABLE PROF ITS. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED T HE RATIONALE OR BUSINESS NECESSITY IN WRITING OFF OF I NVENTORY TO THE TUNE OF ` 1,30,28,406/-. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR WRITE OFF OF INVENTORY WHICH IS NOT BACKED BY DOCUM ENTS, IS AN INCORRECT CLAIM. IT IS PRECISELY FOR THIS REA SON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONTESTED THE DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT. 5. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING AUTHOR ITY HELD THAT IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME AND THE PROVISIONS UNDER SEC.271(1)(C) ARE APPLICABLE T HERETO. ACCORDINGLY, SHE LEVIED A MINIMUM PENALTY OF ` 47,67,418/-. ITA 1307/11 :- 5 -: 6. WHEN THIS IMPOST OF PENALTY WAS TAKEN IN FIRST A PPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE O NLY ISSUE ARISES FOR HIS CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSE E HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN THE RESPECT OF THE INVENT ORY WRITTEN OFF BY IT. HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A COST OF ` 62,61,73,000/-, AS A MAJOR OUTGO BY WAY OF EXPENDITURE IN THE ACCOU NTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE BREAK UP OF THE COSTS ARE AVAILABLE IN SCHEDULE XVII TO THE FINANCE STATE MENTS. IN THAT SCHEDULE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE COST OF INV ENTORY WRITTEN OFF OF ` 1,30,28,000/-. THE ASSESSEE IS CONSISTENTLY VALUI NG ITS INVENTORY AT A LOWER PRICE OR NET REALIZABLE VALUE WHICHEVER IS LESS. THE BASIS OF VALUATION HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED BY T HE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, IT IS THE VIEW OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) THAT PRIMARY MATERIAL FACTS RELATING T O THE WRITE OFF OF INVENTORY HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASS ESSING AUTHORITY FOUND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF WRITE OFF W AS NOT ENTITLED TO BE DEDUCTED AND MADE AN ADDITION TO THE RETURNED IN COME. WHILE ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT TH E MACHINES WERE ITA 1307/11 :- 6 -: IN STOCK WITH THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE WRITE OFF WAS MAINLY DIS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DID NOT BELIEVE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E MACHINES WERE ACTUALLY SCRAPPED. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX( APPEALS) FOUND THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SCRAP THE MACHINE FOR CLAIMING THE WRITE OFF AND NO ACCOUNTING STANDARD SUGGESTS SCRAP OF INVENTORY IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE WRITE OFF. 8. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) FOUND TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN OBSERVATION THAT IF D ELIVERY OF ATMS WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE BANKS, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE INITIATED LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE BANKS. ON THIS POINT , THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE A SSESSEE CANNOT INITIATE SUCH LEGAL PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING TH E CLAIM FOR LIQUATED DAMAGES. AS BANKS ARE THE ONLY CUSTOMERS OF THE AS SESSEE, IT CANNOT TAKE THE RISK OF DAMAGING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BANKS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) THEREFORE, HELD THAT AS A PRUDENT BUSINESS MAN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROCEED AGAINST THE BANKS. ITA 1307/11 :- 7 -: 9. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) THEREAFT ER EXAMINED THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (3 22 ITR 158) WHEREIN THE COURT HAS DISCUSSED THE LEGAL DIMENSION S OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME , IN THE CONTEXT OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SEC.271(1)(C). IN THAT CA SE, IT WAS THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIM ED EXCESSIVE DEDUCTIONS KNOWINGLY THAT SUCH CLAIM WAS INCORRECT. THE REVENUE ARGUED THAT IT WAS A CASE OF CONCEALMENT. THE HON BLE APEX COURT DID NOT FIND SUBSTANCE IN THAT ARGUMENT OF THE REVE NUE AND HELD THAT MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FU RNISHED ALL THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS INCOME IN ITS RETURN, WHICH DETAILS, IN THEMSELVES, WERE NOT FOUND TO BE INACCU RATE NOR COULD BE VIEWED AS CONCEALED INCOME. ON THIS, IT WAS HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE, W HICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVEN UE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT ATTRACT THE PENALTY UNDER SEC.271( 1)(C). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT I N THE PRESENT ITA 1307/11 :- 8 -: CASE ALSO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS NOT ACCEPTED B Y THE REVENUE AND FOR THAT REASON ALONE, THERE CANNOT BE A CASE T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. MAINLY RELYI NG ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RE LIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (322 ITR 158), HE FOUND THAT PEN ALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE PENALTY AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND, THEREFORE, THE SE COND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REV ENUE IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE EXTRACTED BELOW: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALT Y LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO ` 47,67,418/-. 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIAN CE PETRO PRODUCTS LTD. (322 ITR 158) CANNOT BE CONSIDE RED TO BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ON ALL F OURS. 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE CLAIM OF WRITE OFF OF INVENTORIES AND THE CLAIM OF INVENTORIES WAS NOT ITA 1307/11 :- 9 -: SUPPORTED BY DUE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED, THERE WERE MANY INCONSISTENCIES/CONTRADICTIONS. THUS, IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ANY FOUNDATION OR BASIS FOR MAKING ITS CLAIM. 2.3 IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN THE LIGHT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. ZOOM COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD. (327 ITR 510). 11. WE HEARD SHRI ANIRUDH RAI, THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX AND SHRI KEB RENGARAJAN, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE AND SHRI MILIND S. KOTHAR I, THE LEARNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT-A SSESSEE. 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ISSUE IS RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF WRITE OFF MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF ` 1,30,28,406/-. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT WHILE CLAIMING SUCH DEDUCTIO N, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHICH HAS INVI TED THE CONSEQUENCES OF SEC.271(1)(C). ON GOING THROUGH TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN A DETAILED MANNER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA 1307/11 :- 10 -: PROVIDED FOR WRITE OFF OF ATMS AND OTHER SYSTEMS, NOT ACCEPTED BY CUSTOMER-BANKS. REGARDING THE VALUATION OF ITEMS C OVERED BY BUY- BACK SCHEMES, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY EXPLAINED TH AT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT FIGHT WITH THE CUSTOMER-BANKS FOR T HE REASON THAT BANKS ALONE ARE THE CUSTOMERS FOR THESE PRODUCTS AN D THEREFORE, THE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE DISTURBED. THIS IS A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEEE WHICH HAS TO B E ACCEPTED ON ITS FACE VALUE. 13. THE OTHER OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE PARTICULARS OF WRITE OFF. IT IS NOT CORRECT. IN THE SCHEDULE FORMING PART OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DETAILS OF WRITE OFF HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. THER E IS NO CONCEALMENT OF DETAILS FROM THE STATEMENTS OF ACCOU NTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. REGARDIN G DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE EVENTS, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HER SELF HAD STATED IN HER ORDER IN PAGE 3 OF THE PENALTY ORDER THAT THE A SSESSE HAD FURNISHED COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH SBI RELATIN G TO BUY-BACK AND SALE OF 37 ATMS. SHE HAD ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE SOUGHT FURTHER TIME TO FURNISH EVIDE NCE IN RESPECT OF BUY-BACK OF BALANCE 39 ATMS AND WRITE OFF OF SPARES AND ITA 1307/11 :- 11 -: COMPONENTS. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNIS HED CERTAIN SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCES AT LEAST IN RESPECT OF HALF O F THE ITEMS INVOLVED IN THE BUY-BACK SCHEME. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE A SSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DESCRIPTIVE PARTICULARS OF BUY-BACK SCHEM E OFFERED TO SEVERAL BANKS SUCH AS STATE BANK OF INDIA, BANK OF BARODA, ETC. 14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT READY TO ACCEPT T HE EXPLANATIONS AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SUFFICIENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND AS SUCH, THE CLAIM WAS DISAL LOWED AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A PO SITION TO FURNISH THE REMAINING DETAILS WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY OR IF SUCH DETAILS WERE NOT RIGHTLY AVAIL ABLE IN ITS HANDS, THOUGHT TO ACCEPT THE ADDITION AND CLOSE THE CHAPTE R AT THAT STAGE. THAT IS WHY THE ADDITION WAS ACKNOWLEDGED AND NO AP PEAL WAS FILED AGAINST THAT ADDITION. 15. BUT THE ABOVE ADDITION BY ITSELF CANNOT BE A SO LE GROUND FOR IMPUTING THE CASE OF PENALTY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A CONSISTENT JUDICIAL VIEW THAT EVERY ADDITION MADE IN AN ASSESS MENT CANNOT BE IPSO FACTO LEAD TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY EITHER ON THE GROUND OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR ON THE GROU ND OF CONCEALMENT ITA 1307/11 :- 12 -: OF INCOME OR ON BOTH. THE PENALTY BEING A CIVIL LI ABILITY MAY NOT REQUIRE THE PRESENCE OF MENS REA. BUT THAT DOES NO T MEAN THAT EVERY ADDITION CAN MAKE WAY FOR IMPOSING PENALTY. THE DIVIDING LINE HAS TO BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED AFTER ANALYZING THE FA CTS OF EACH CASE. WHAT IS CULPABLE IN SEC.271(1)(C) IS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE STRENGTH OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE WITH IT HOLDS BONA FIDE VIEW THAT THE PARTICULARS F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ACCURATE PARTICULARS, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS INACCURATE PARTICULARS ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE QUESTION IS THAT OF NATURE OF PART ICULARS ITSELF. THE PARTICULARS WHICH SPEAK BY THEMSELVES ARE EXACT NAT URE; WHETHER ACCURATE OR INACCURATE. 16. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINE D NECESSARY DETAILS IN ITS ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS TO EXPLA IN THE REASONING OF WRITING OFF OF INVENTORY AT LEAST IN HALF OF SUCH I NSTANCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CORRESPONDENCES WITH RESPECT IVE BANKS. THERE IS NOTHING AVAILABLE ON RECORD THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS MADE A BLUNT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. THERE IS NO CASE THAT TH E CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BOGUS AS SUCH. ITA 1307/11 :- 13 -: 17. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE REVENUE ON THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ZOOM COMMUNICATION P. LTD. (327 ITR 510). IN THAT JUDGM ENT, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED I F THE EXPLANATION IS FOUND BONA FIDE. THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS JUSTIFI ED ONLY WHERE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NEITHER SUBS TANTIATED NOR SHOWN TO BE BONA FIDE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BONA FIDE CAUSE ON ITS CONTENTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBSTANTIATED ITS EXPLANATIONS. THEREFORE , THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. 18. IT IS ALSO TO BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHOR ITY HAS NOT VERIFIED THE SITUATION WITH ANY OF THE BANKS WITH W HICH THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO SALE AND BUY-BACK SCHEME. THOSE B ANKS ARE WELL KNOWN BANKS. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUT A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INAC CURATE PARTICULARS RELYING EXCLUSIVELY ON THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE, THE MATTER IS T HAT OF JUDGMENT. THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE ISSUE COMPEL US TO HOL D A VIEW THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS. W E FIND THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE LEVY OF PENALTY IS JUSTIFIED. ITA 1307/11 :- 14 -: 19. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AN D DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY , THE 15 TH OF MARCH, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 15 TH MARCH, 2012. MPO* COPY TO: (1) PETITIONE R (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.