IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1346 TO 1351/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2010-11) SH.TILAK RAJ BEDI, VS. THE D.C.I.T., PROP. M/S PUNEET EXPORTS INC., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 854/2, PUNJAB MATA NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ADBPB3623N ITA NOS.1352 TO 1357/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2010-11) SH.PUNEET BEDI, VS. THE D.C.I.T., PROP. M/S NIKHIL EXPORTS INC., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 473/1, ST.NO.0 JANAK PURI, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AGAPB9766C ITA NOS.1358 TO 1360/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 TO 2010-11) SMT.NEHA BEDI, VS. THE D.C.I.T., PROP. M/S NEHA EXPORTS INC., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 471/1, ST.NO.0 JANAKPURI, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AOFPB1778M ITA NO.1362/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) M/S RAJAN TRADING PVT. LTD., VS. THE D.C.I.T., C/O PUNEET FASHION GROUP, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 559/4, KALI SARAK, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAECR1188B ITA NO.1363/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) M/S S.K. TEXTILES, VS. THE D.C.I.T., C/O PUNEET FASHION GROUP, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 471/1, JANAKPURI, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ABQFS0455C AND 2 ITA NOS.1365 & 1366 /CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S NIKHIL EXIM PVT. LTD., VS. THE D.C.I.T., C/O PUNEET FASHION GROUP, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BEDI COMPLEX, TAJPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA. SHIV MANDIR STREET, LUDHIANA. PAN: ADBCN3623N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PANKAJ BHALLA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.07.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.07.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH . : THIS BUNCH OF 19 APPEALS HAS BEEN FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT (APPEALS), BATHINDA, ALL DATED 01.09.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2010-11 AND 2011-12, UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 2. IT WAS COMMON GROUND BETWEEN BOTH THE PARTIES THAT ALL THE ABOVE CASES INVOLVED COMMON FACTS AND THEREFORE ALL THE CASES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND AR E BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE SHALL BE DEALING WITH THE FACTS IN T HE CASE OF ITA NO.1346/CHD/2016. ITA NO.1346/CHD/2016 (TILAK RAJ BEDI PROP.M/S PUNEET EXPORTS INC.): 3. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL PERTAI NS TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE, 3 LEADING TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY. IS THAT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTE D IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH OTHER GROUP ENTITIES AND FAMILY MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY CALLED PUNEET FASHION G ROUP ON 12.10.2010. THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME AS PROPRIE TOR OF M/S PUNEET EXPORTS INC. AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY. PURSUANT TO SEARCH AND IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.8,34 ,430/- WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT COOPERATE, WITH VARIOUS NOTICES BEING ISSUED TO IT REMAINING UNCOMPLIED WITH. THEREAFTER, OWING TO THE COMPLEXI TY OF ACCOUNTS AND DOUBTS ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE AC COUNTS, A SPECIAL AUDIT UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT WA S ORDERED, WHICH WAS ALSO HAMPERED BY THE NON COOPERA TIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, T HEREFORE, PROCEEDED TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND HIS B EST JUDGMENT, MAKING ADDITIONS TOTALLING RS. 4,49,43,00 9/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATING THE GP, THEREBY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.4,16,874/- , 2. ON ACCOUNT OF INCREMENT IN SUNDRY CREDITORS/UNSECURED LOANS, HOLDING THE SAME TO BE UNEXPLAINED, AMOUNTING TO RS.3,60,86,364/-. 3. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 36(1)(II I) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.65,04,158/- 4. DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.8,45,613/-. 4 5. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, RS.10,90,000/-. THUS AGGREGATE ADDITION OF RS.4,49,43,009/- WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE SAID EX-PARTE ORDER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) WITH THE APPEAL BEING F ILED BEYOND THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 249(2)(B) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED FOR CONDONING THE DELAY CITING VARIOUS REASONS RANGING FROM THE FAILURE OF THE ASS ESSEES COUNSEL TO FILE THE APPEAL TO THE DIRE FINANCIAL CO NDITION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A), HOWEVER, REFUSED TO C ONDONE THE DELAY AND TREATED THE APPEAL AS NOT MAINTAINABL E. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER THE ASSESSEE FILED A RE CTIFICATION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154/155 OF THE ACT. IN T HE MEANWHILE EVEN BEFORE THE DECISION OF THE QUANTUM A PPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) GOT DECIDED, PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN RESPON SE TO NOTICE ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY PLEADED IGNOR ANCE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE NOTICE FOR PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS WAS ISSUED, PURSUANT TO WHICH COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOTICES WERE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BE KEPT IN ABEYANCE TI LL THE DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE QU ANTUM CASE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO IMPOSE PENALTY AMOUNT ING TO RS.1,48,53,626/-. 5 5. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) WHERE INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFORE THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) THAT T HE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BE KEPT IN ABEYANCE TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION MADE BEFORE THE LD .CIT (APPEALS). NO SUBMISSIONS ON THE MERITS OF THE CAS E WERE MADE. THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) SUMMARILY DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HOLDING THAT THE ELEMENT OF NON- COOPERATION WAS WRIT LARGE ON THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING S PURSUANT TO SEARCH. LD CIT(A) FOUND NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR KEEPING THE ORDER IN ABEYANCE TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS, STATING THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS MAY O R MAY NOT LEAD TO RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES, AGAINST BOTH OF WHICH APPROPRIATE REMEDIES WERE AVAILABLE TO THE AS SESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) AT PA RA 7 TO 9 OF HIS ORDER ARE AS UNDER: 7. AS SET OUT ABOVE, THE ELEMENT OF NON-COOPERATIO N IS WRIT LARGE ON THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE POST-SEARC H ASSESSMENT FOR ALL THE GROUP CASES INCLUDING THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS FRAMED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, EVEN THE APPEAL AGAINST THE EX PARTE ORDER WAS FILED AFTER A CONSIDERABLE GAP, WHICH APPEAL WAS FOUND TO BE NON-MAINTAINABLE BY THE JURISDICTI ONAL APPELLATE COMMISSIONER BY A SPEAKING ORDER IN WHICH ALL THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE SEEN TO HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH. THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER HAS CLEARLY INDICATED IN THE ORDER HIS DISSATISFACTION ABOUT BOTH, THE GENUINENESS AS WELL AS THE SUFFICIENCY OF TH E GROUNDS PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSATIVE OF THE DELAYED APPEAL. YET, INSTEAD OF FILING AN APPEAL AGAINST THAT ORDER BEFORE THE SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR REDRESSAL OF THE GRIEVANCE, THE APPEL LANT, FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO IT, CHOSE TO FILE A RECTIFIC ATION PETITION AGAINST THAT ORDER ON THE SPECIOUS REASON T HAT JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED. THOUGH IT IS 6 NOT INTENDED TO PREJUDGE THE EFFICACY OR THE PROBAB LE OUTCOME OF THE PENDING RECTIFICATION PETITION BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL APPELLATE COMMISSIONER, AS THIS APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT SEIZED WITH THIS MATTER, IT CANNOT BUT BE FELT THAT THE APPELLANT IS OBSTRUCTIN G AND STONEWALLING THE FINALITY OF THE POST-SEARCH PROCEEDINGS BY NITPICKING AND ABUSING THE PROCESS OF LAW. 8. IT CANNOT BE GAINSAID THAT THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT HAS A DIRECT BEARING ON THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE THE OUTCOME OF APPEAL IN THE QUANTUM SHALL NECESSARILY DECIDE THE COURSE OF APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER. SHOULD THE ASSESSEE NOW BECOME COOPERATIVE AND BE CONSCIOUS OF ITS OBLIGATIO NS AND DUTIES TOWARDS PAYING THE DUE TAXES OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE ENTIRE MATTER SHALL HAVE TO NECESSARI LY GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE RIGMAROLE ONCE AGAIN AS THE APPELLANT DID NOT AVAIL OF THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE AO WHO, PERFORCE, PASSED AN EX PARTE ORDER. THERE HA S ALSO BEEN A SPECIAL AUDIT IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE. IN T HIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT TO KEEP THE MATTER PENDING AND IN ABEYANCE TILL THE DISPOSAL OF TH E RECTIFICATION PETITION IS NOT CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE. ASSUMING THAT THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS IN THE PENDING RECTIFICATION APPLICATION, THERE SHALL BE A CONSIDERA TION OF THE MATTER, NECESSARILY INVOLVING A REMAND BEFOR E THE AO, ONLY AFTER WHICH THE APPELLATE ORDER CAN BE PASSED. FURTHER ASSUMING THAT THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WOULD RESULT IN KNOCKING OFF THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES, THE AO SHALL HAVE TO RECAST THE PENALTY PURSUANT TO THE APPELLATE ORDER. SHOULD THE GRIEVANCE REGARDING PENALTY REMAIN, THE APPELLANT CA N THEN,AGAIN COME UP IN APPEAL. SAY IF THE APPELLANT DOE S NOT SUCCEED WITH THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION, HE ST ILL HAS AN AVENUE AT THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL, WHOSE ORDER ALSO SHALL HAVE A BEARING ON THE PENALTY, WHICH CAN BE RE-WORKED OR RE-DECIDED. IT IS FOR THIS REASO N THAT THE APPELLANT'S REQUEST OF KEEPING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS QUA THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER IN ABEYANCE IS NOT CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE AND HENCE NO T ACCEEDED TO. 9. NOW SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT STATED ANYTHING I N SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL, IT IS HELD THAT HE HAS NOTHING T O SAY IN THIS REGARD. HENCE THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. IT I S ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 7 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), BATHINDA HAS WRONGLY PASSED THE ORDER U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AGAINST LAW & FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND F ACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT AFFORDING SUFFICIE NT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN LAWS AND FACTS BY MO ST ARBITRARY REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT T O KEEP THE APPEAL AGAINST IMPUGNED PENALTY IN ABEYANCE TILL THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ATTAINED FINALITY BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN LAWS AND FACTS BY PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL OF APPELLATE I N A SUMMARY MANNER , BY REJECTING APPLICATION TO KEEP APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE AND WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLATE TO FILE SUBMISSIONS ON MERITS OF THE CASE. THUS THE ORDER PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATUR AL JUSTICE I.E. AUDI ALTERAM PARTAM. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE A.O. DID NOT CARRY OUT A VALID SERVICE OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE(S) U/S 271 (1) ( C) R.W. SEC 274 OF THE 'ACT' , HAD THEREIN GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION AND IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THAT THE LD CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE A O HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE BY MOST ARBITRARILY IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) ON THE BA SIS OF A NON-SPEAKING ORDER, WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON , MUCH THE LESS A COGENT REASON JUSTIFYING T HE IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THAT THE LD CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AO HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW & FACTS OF THE CASE BY MOST ARBITRARILY IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (C) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE , SOLELY FOR THE REASON THAT ADDITIONS HAD BEEN MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 8. THAT THE LD CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE AO HA D GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE BY MOST ARBITRARILY IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C)WITHOUT RECORDING ANY INDEPENDENT REASON JUSTIFYING IMPOSITION OF THE SAME. 9. THAT THE LD CIT(A) AND THE AO EVEN OTHERWISE HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING/IMPOSING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE 'ACT' FOR A DEFAULT WHICH IS SEPA RATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE ALLEGED ' DEFAULT ON THE BASIS O F WHICH THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 8 10. THAT THE LD CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AO HAD GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE WHEREIN HE THOUGH ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WILFULLY DISCLOSED 'INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME' , BUT THEREAFTER IMPOSED PENALTY IN HIS HANDS FOR' CONCEALMENT OF INCOME'. 11. THAT THE LD CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AO EVEN OTHERWISE HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE BY FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT IN LIGHT OF THE NATURE OF ADDITIONS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, NO PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) WAS LIABLE TO BE IMPOSED. 12. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AO HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS F THE CASE BY IMPOSIN G PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE BASIS OF AN ORDER MADE A S ON 27.05.2014, WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROVAL OF THE APPROPRIATING AUTHORITY, AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE CASE BE R ESTORED TO THE CIT(A) SINCE HE HAD FAILED TO ADDRESS THE LE GAL GROUND RAISED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE OF ASSUMING JURIS DICTION TO LEVY PENALTY WITHOUT OBTAINING THE NECESSARY APP ROVAL OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AS PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO GROU ND NO.11 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE LD .CIT(A) IN FORM NO.35 WHICH READ AS UNDER; 11. THAT THE AO HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE BY IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE BASIS OF AN ORDER MADE AS ON 27.05.2014,WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROVAL OF THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY,AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT TH E LD.CIT (APPEALS) HAD NOT DEALT WITH THIS GROUND RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POI NTED OUT THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 274 SUB-SECTI ON (2), NO ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY COULD BE MADE BY THE ASSISTA NT COMMISSIONER WHERE THE PENALTY EXCEEDS RS.20,000/- 9 EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE JOINT COMMISS IONER. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.1,48,53,626/-HAD BEEN LEVIED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO T HE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI GYAN CHAND JAIN VS. ITO IN ITA NO.53/JP/2011 DATED 7.3.2014 WHEREIN THE NECESSITY OF OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE REQUISITE AUTHORITY UND ER SECTION 274 WAS UPHELD AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SA ME THE PENALTY ORDER WAS HELD NOT TO BE A LEGAL ORDER IN T HE EYES OF LAW. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE MATTER BE REMANDED TO THE LD.CIT (APPEALS ) FOR RECONSIDERATION. 9. THE LD. D.R. FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) HAD NOT DEALT WITH THE AFORESAID GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IT. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. UNDOUBTEDLY IN THE PRESENT CASE PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C) AMOUNTING TO RS.1,48,53,626/- HAS BEEN LEVIED BY T HE DCIT. SECTION 274 OF THE ACT, MANDATES APPROVAL OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WHERE PENALTY LEV IED BY THE DCIT EXCEEDS 20,000/-.THE ASSESSEE ,WE FIND, H AD RAISED THE GROUND BEFORE THE CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE DCIT TO LEVY PENA LTY.THE 10 LD CIT(A) ,WE FIND, DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE LEGAL GROUND RAISED BEFORE IT. IN TERESTINGLY WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS MADE A PASSING REFER ENCE TO THIS ISSUE IN HIS ORDER AT PARA 5,WHILE NARRATING T HE FACTS OF THE CASE, STATING THAT APPARENTLY THE STATUTORY APP ROVAL WAS TAKEN AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ORDER IMPOSING PENAL TY WHICH EVIDENTLY WAS INCORRECTLY DATED. THE RELEVANT PORTI ON OF THE ORDER IS AS UNDER: PENALTY OF RS.1,48,53,626/-WAS,THUS,LEVIED VIDE ORDER DATED 27/05/2014,EVEN THOUGH IT IS STATED THAT APPROVAL FOR THE SAID ORDER WAS ACCORDED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ON 30/05/2014.EVIDENTLY,THE AO HAS DATED HIS PENALTY ORDER INCORRECTLY. 11. THE AFORESAID OBSERVATION OF THE LD.CIT(A), WITHOUT CORROBORATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE FROM TH E RECORDS, DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO ADJUDICATING THE IS SUE OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION. FURTHER WE FIND THAT T HE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL SUMMARILY WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS, NUMBERIN G IN ALL TO 12, RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE CONSIDE R IT FIT THAT THE APPEAL BE RESTORED BACK TO THE LD.CIT (AP PEALS) FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER DEALING WITH ALL THE G ROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER DIRECT THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. ITA NOS.1347 TO 1351/CHD/2016 (SH.TILAK RAJ BEDI) (SH.PUNEET BEDI) ITA NOS.1352 TO 1357/CHD/2016 (SH.PUNEET BEDI) 11 ITA NOS.1358 TO 1360/CHD/2016 (SMT.NEHA BEDI) ITA NO.1362/CHD/2016 (M/S RAJAN TRADING PVT. LTD.) ITA NO.1363/CHD/2016 (M/S S.K. TEXTILES) ITA NOS.1365 & 1366/CHD/2016 (M/S NIKHIL EXIM PVT. LTD.) 12. IT IS RELEVANT TO OBSERVE HERE THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR TO THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ITA NO.1346/CHD/2016 AND THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN ITA NO.1346/CHD/2016 SHALL APPLY TO THESE APPEALS ALSO WITH EQUAL FORCE. THE APPEALS O F THE ASSESSES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE ES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 26 TH JULY, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH