DCIT, CHENNAI V. IGold Technologies Private Limited, CHENNAI

ITA 1335/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8055 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS JT
• Assessee Lawyers: S SEETHARAMAN
• Keywords: Wrong claim; Difference of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 10B; 10

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHE NNAI , ! ' # $' # % . &' , ( ! )* BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I T.A. NO. 1335/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-2(2), ROOM NO.512, 5 TH FLOOR, WANAPARTHY BLOCK, 121, MG ROAD, CHENNAI 600 034. VS. IGOLD TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, LORDS BLOCK-1, PLONT NO.1 & 2 (NP) NORTHERN EXTENSION AREA, THIRU-VI-KA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GUINDY, CHENNAI 600 032. [PAN: AABCI 8037K] ( +, /APPELLANT ) ( -.+, / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JT. CIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.SEETHARAMAN, CA / DATE OF HEARING : 03.01.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.01.2017 / / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6 DATED 03.03. 2016 (CIT(A)) FOR SHORT) PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ACT IN SHORT], FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .1335 1335 1335 1335/M /M/M /MDS DSDS DS/ // /201 201201 2016 66 6 2 2. THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL WIT H REGARD TO DELETION OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF I.T ACT . THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY. IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT WAS DISALLOW ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS IT DID NOT HAVE APPROVAL FROM THE APPROP RIATE AUTHORITY. AS A RESULT, THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10B AMOUNTING TO RS .65,56,104/- WAS DENIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER HAS IMPOSED A PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AT 100 PERCENT OF THE TAX SOUG HT TO BE EVADED WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.20,06,166/-. WHILE IMPOSING THE PE NALTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT THE CASE MERITED IMPOSIT ION OF PENALTY AS THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INCORRECT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. 3. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN T HE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY PROPER APPROVAL FROM THE APPRO PRIATE AUTHORITY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT ON T HE 75 PER CENT OF THE PROFIT FROM THE ASSESSEE THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T FILED ANY AUDIT REPORT IN FORM-56G TO CLAIM THIS DEDUCTION. 4. ON APPEAL CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING T HAT THERE IS NO FINDINGS IN THE PENALTY ORDER THAT ANY DETAILS FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURNS WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. ACCORDINGLY, HE PLACED RELIANCE OF THE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .1335 1335 1335 1335/M /M/M /MDS DSDS DS/ // /201 201201 2016 66 6 3 RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC) WHEREIN HELD THAT A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM WHICH IS NOT UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDI NG INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OBTAINED THE RELEVANT APPROVAL FROM THE APP ROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND NEITHER FILED AUDIT REPORT FORM 56G SO AS TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. FURTHER, CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ON THE QUANTUM ADDITION MADE, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES FOR THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. IS DISTINGUISHABLE SINCE IT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE WHI CH WAS REJECTED BY THE AO THUS LEADING O LEVY OF PENALTY US/ 271(1)(C). I N THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FACT THAT HAS NOT FULFILLED TH E CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE ACT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B FURNISHED INACCU RATE PARTICULARS FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE A.R SUBMITTED THAT CLAIMI NG OF INCORRECT DEDUCTION, ITSELF DOES NOT LIABLE FOR LEVY OF PENA LTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, CLAIMED A DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT OF BONA- I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .1335 1335 1335 1335/M /M/M /MDS DSDS DS/ // /201 201201 2016 66 6 4 FIDE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE FULFILLED THE CONDITI ON LAID DOWN IN S. 10B OF THE ACT AS THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FROM EX PORT ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FALSE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR THE B URDEN OF PROOF IS ON AO TO ARRIVE AT SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNIS HED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THA T A PARTICULAR CLAIM IS UNTENABLE DOES NOT IPSO FACTO MEANT FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. FOR THIS PURPOSE HE RELIED ON JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ANANTHARAM VEERASINGAIAH & CO. VS. CIT [1980] 16 CTR (SC) 189 WHEREIN HELD THAT IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS , THUS, THE AU THORITIES MUST CONSIDER THE MATTER AFRESH AS THE QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED FROM DIFFERENT ANGLE. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. CITED (SUPRA). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE I.T. ACT AT 75 PER CENT OF ITS INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT FILING A FORM NO.56G. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE CONCLUDING ASSESSMENT U /S. 143(3) CAME TO KNOW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 10B OF THE ACT IS BOGUS. CONSEQUENT TO THIS, HE ISSUED NOTICE FOR LEVY OF PE NALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND LEVIED PENALTY ACCORDINGLY AT 100 PERCENT O F THE AMOUNT TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. THE MAIN PLEA OF THE LD. AR IS THAT M AKING WRONG CLAIM IN THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .1335 1335 1335 1335/M /M/M /MDS DSDS DS/ // /201 201201 2016 66 6 5 RETURN OF INCOME CANNOT TENTAMOUNT TO BOGUS CLAIM A ND THEREBY AO CANNOT LEVY PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT AND THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO INTENTION TO FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO TH E REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IN OUR OPINION AS HELD BY SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F UNION OF INDIA V. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE 306 ITR 277 MENS REA IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT FOR IMPOSING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AS PENAL TY BASICALLY A CIVIL LIABILITY. THEREFORE, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT WHAT HAS TO BE EXA MINED IS WHETHER THERE WERE NO INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR ANY CONCEALMENT O F INCOME WHILE FILING THE RETURN. THE GOOD FAITH OF THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH T HE ASSESSEE RELIED ON TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE IS NOT AN ESSENTI AL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY AS IS THE CASE IN THE MATTER OF PR OSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN HIS FINDI NGS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS O NUS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SHE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECOR D AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE ASSESSEES CASE AND HOW SHE ARRIVED AT THE SATISFACTION THAT SAME CONSTITUTES F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WITHIN THE MEANING OF S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO CIT(A), IF THE ASSESSEE MADE A WRONG CLAIM U/S. 10B OF THE ACT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT IT CA NNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS GIVEN AN AMPLE CHANCE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .1335 1335 1335 1335/M /M/M /MDS DSDS DS/ // /201 201201 2016 66 6 6 TO ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10 B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE TOOK A PLEA ON THAT SENSE THE ASSESSEE EAR NED INCOME FROM EXPORTS THE ASSESSEE INCOME EXEMPT U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY REQUISITE CERTIFICAT ION IN FORM-50G FROM CHARTED ACCOUNTANT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONT ED BY THE AO REGARDING WRONG CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT, IT IS NOT IN A POSITION TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E WAS REJECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. THEREFORE, IN THE P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS, NOTHING TO BE LEFT FOR THE AO TO FURTHER ENQUIRY AB OUT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE ITSELF CONCEDED THE MATTE R WITHOUT GOING ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. TO MAKE IT CL EAR, WE DO NOT SAY THAT WITHDRAWAL CLAIM OF THE DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE IPSO FACTO WILL BE TO MAKE CONCLUSION OF LEVY OF PENALTY. WE ARE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT P ROCEEDINGS AND THE POSTULATES OF BOTH ARE QUITE DIFFERENT IN ITS RHYME AND REASON. BUT, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN DISOWN ITSELF FROM S TATING INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN THE RETURN FILED BY IT. IN OTHER WO RDS, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONVINCE AND PROVE THAT THE COMPUTATION S PROVIDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ARE TRUE AND BEST OF ITS KNOWLEDGE AND BE LIEF. 9. IT IS TRUE THAT PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF FINDINGS RECORDED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SO, H OWEVER, IT IS WELL I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .1335 1335 1335 1335/M /M/M /MDS DSDS DS/ // /201 201201 2016 66 6 7 ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE FINDINGS RECO RDED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE RELEVANT THOUGH NOT CONCLUSIVE. IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE AS THE RIGHT TO PRODUCE FURTHER EVIDEN CE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, CIT(A) WITHOUT SEEING HOW THE ASSESSEE ENTITLE DEDUCTION U/S. 10B AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING ANY EVIDENCE, ONLY BY PLACING RELIANCE ON FEW JUDGMENTS CAME TO THE CON CLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULA RS OF INCOME. THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY EVIDENCE EXAMINED BY CIT(A), THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE RECORDED HIS FINDINGS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE CLAIMED TO HAVE FILED BEFORE AO OR BEFORE HIM AND CIT(A) FAILED TO EXAMINE EVIDENCE IF ANY AND DELETED THE PENALTY WHICH IS NOT PROPER. THE CIT(A) IN THIS C ASE SIMPLY RECORDED THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR AND ACCEPTED THE SAME WITHOU T REFERRING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD REGARDING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT, AND HE HAS COMPLETELY IGNORE THE FINDING OF THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER REGARDING THE WRONG AND BOGUS CLAIM MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE C LAIM MADE U/S. 10B OF THE ACT LEVIED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IS VERY MUCH WARR ANTED. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S GULLIBLE. FURTHER IT IS ALSO BE ENSURED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD KNE W THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT ENTITLE DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED ONLY 75 PERCENT OF THE INCOME FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT FOR WHICH ALSO ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED CHARTED ACCOUNTANT CERTIFICA TE IN FORM NO.56G. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .1335 1335 1335 1335/M /M/M /MDS DSDS DS/ // /201 201201 2016 66 6 8 THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EVIDENCE BEIN G MADE TO BE BY ASSESSEE, THE LD AR HAS BEEN UNABLE TO SHOW AS TO HOW THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE WOULD ATTRACT ANY BENEFIT OF DOUBT . FURTHER, MERELY MAKING BALD STATEMENT THAT ASSESSEE IS BONA-FIDE TO CLAIM SUCH DEDUCTION U/S. 10B DOES NOT LAND ANY CREDENCE TO THE STORY OF THE ASSE SSEE. IT IS TOTALLY UN- PALATABLE THAT HAVING BEEN MADE BONA-FIDE CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE ARGUMENT THAT WHAT HE DID SO IS IN GOOD FAITH IN CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE G ENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE H AS MADE WRONG CLAIM PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT JUSTIFIED. 10. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS LTD. CITED (SUP RA). IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE DECLARED A LOSS IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME TH E ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINED THE INC OME AT RS. 2,22,668/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT THERE WAS AN ADDITION TOWARDS INTERE ST EXPENDITURE AND CONSEQUENT TO THIS PENALTY WAS LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. ON THE REASON THAT THE INTEREST CASE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF EXPENDITURE TOWARDS INTEREST ON LOANS INCORPORATED BY IT BY WHICH AMOUN T THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED SOME IPL SHARES BY WAY OF ITS BUSINESS PO LICIES. HOWEVER, ADMITTEDLY ASSESSEE DID NOT EARN ANY INCOME BY WAY OF DIVIDEND FROM THOSE SHARES. THE COMPANY IN ITS RETURN CLAIMED DISALLOW ANCE OF THE AMOUNT OF I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .1335 1335 1335 1335/M /M/M /MDS DSDS DS/ // /201 201201 2016 66 6 9 EXPENDITURE OF RS.28,77,242/- U/S. 14A OF THE I.T A CT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED IN THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THAT ALL THE D ETAILS GIVEN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN OR ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WERE SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENT DECISION TAKEN ON THE SAME STATE OF FACTS AND THEREFORE, THEY COULD, AT THE MUST, BE FAMED AS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BUT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT MERE DISALLOWANCE OF T HE CLAIM IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT BE SO BASE FOR LEV Y OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS INVESTMENT COMPANY AND IN ITS OWN CASE FOR AY 2000-01 THE CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE INTEREST MADE BY AO AND THE TRIBUNAL AND TRIBUNAL A LSO CONFIRMED THAT ORDER, AND THEREFORE, IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THIS, THAT TH E EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MAKING PAYMENT WHICH IS REJECTED WOULD NOT MAKE ASSESSEE COMPANY LIABLE U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IT WAS AGAIN REITERATED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. IN THAT CIRCUM STANCES SUPREME COURT HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUC TION FOR EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED, MERELY MAKING OF THE CLAIM, W HICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, IT ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACC URATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, A SSESSEE MADE AN I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .1335 1335 1335 1335/M /M/M /MDS DSDS DS/ // /201 201201 2016 66 6 10 ATTEMPT TO WRONG CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THA T ASSESSEE NOT ENTITLED THE SAME AND TRYING TO MISLEAD THE DEPARTMENT BY CLAIMI NG 75 PERCENT INCOME HAS EXEMPTED FOR WHICH THERE IS NO SANCTITY AND IT IS A MERE CASE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME SO AS T O DEFRAUD THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS CASE VERY MUCH FIT FOR LEVY OF PE NALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE OF CIT(A) BY THIS ISS UE AND RESTORE THAT OF THE AO BY CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 25 TH JANUARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 25.01.2017 EDN !' #$ %$ /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. & ( ) /CIT(A), 4. & /CIT, 5. $'( ) /DR & 6. (* + /GF.