M/s BNK Investments, Chandigarh V. JCIT (TDS), Chandigarh

ITA 1385/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8220 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: YOGENDER MITTAL SR DR
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause; TDS
• Section: 273B; 206AA

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH , !' # $ % &' , '( BEFORE: SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1385/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S BNK INVESTMENTS, HOUSE NO. 89, SECTOR 8-A, CHANDIGARH. THE JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH. ./ PAN NO: AABFI8621G / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 1386/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S HAIR CODE, SCO 96-97, IST FLOOR, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH. THE JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH. ./ PAN NO: PTLHI2106D / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI YOGENDER MITTAL,SR.DR $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 28.03.2019 '()* ! &/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.04.2019 ')/ ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF EVEN DATE 29.08.2018 ,PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -1, CHANDIGARH [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 . 2. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSU E INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS WAS IDENTICAL BEING PENALTY LEVIED U/S 272 A(2)(K) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS THE A CT) ON ACCOUNT ITA NOS. 1385&1386 /CHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 8 OF LATE FILING OF TDS RETURN. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE THEREFOR E, TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR HEARING AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDE R. 3. WE SHALL FIRST BE DEALING WITH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IN ITA 1385/CHD/2018. 4. THE APPEAL WAS TIME BARRED BY TWO DAYS. APPLICAT ION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY WAS FILED ON 28.03.2019 STATING THAT THE DELAY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOR F ILING OF APPEAL WERE GIVEN TO ONE C.A. RAMNEET KAUR WHO WAS WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF C.A. SHRI VINEET KHURANA, COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSE E AND SINCE THE SAID PERSON HAD FALLEN ILL WITH VIRAL, THE APPEAL C OULD NOT BE SUBMITTED IN TIME RESULTING IN DELAY OF TWO DAYS. THE APPLICATION WAS SUPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF C.A. SHRI VINEET KH URANA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO THIS EFFECT WAS FILED. 5. ON GOING THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATIO NSUPPORTED BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE DELAY OF TWO DAYS HAS OCCURRED FOR REASONS BEYOND T HE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DELAY IS, ACCORDINGLY, CONDONED. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES IN THE OPEN C OURT. THE PARTIES WERE, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTED TO ARGUE THE AP PEAL ON MERITS. 6. BRIEFLY STATED, ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE OFFICE OF J CIT (TDS) CHANDIGARH, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE PERSON RESPON SIBLE (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS PR) HAD FAILED TO FILE QUARTERLY R ETURNS IN TIME RELATING TO F.Y. 2010-11. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY U/S 272 A(2)(K) OF THE ACT WAS IMPOSED AGAINST THE PR WORKING OUT THE DELA Y IN FILING TDS IN DAYS AND THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY LEVIABLE AS A CON SEQUENCE THERETO AS UNDER : ITA NOS. 1385&1386 /CHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 PAGE 3 OF 8 FYS 2010- DATE OF FILLING I I DUE DATE OF FILLING DELAYS IN DAYS AMOUNT OF TDS AMOUNT OF PENALTY 1 ST QUARTER 07.02.02012 15.07.2010 571 0 0 2 ND QUARTER 07.02.02012 15.10.2010 480 0 0 3 RD QUARTER 07.02.02012 15.01.2011 389 2055371 3890 0 4 TH QUARTER 07.02.02012 15.05.2011 268 1756756 26800 657 65700 7. THUS A PENALTY OF RS. 65,700/- WAS IMPOSED U/S 2 72A(2)(K) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), CONTENDING THAT THE D ELAY IN FILING OF TDS RETURN WAS DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF PAN DETAI LS OF VARIOUS PERSONS TO WHOM THE PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS MADE IT MANDATORY TO PR OVIDE PAN NUMBER OF EACH AND EVERY PAYMENT DETAIL AND SINCE T HE MAJORITY OF PERSONS DID NOT HAVE THEIR PAN NUMBERS OR HAD PROVI DED INCORRECT NUMBERS, IT LED TO UNWANTED DELAY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT TDS HAD ALREADY BEEN DEPOSITED. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, DISMISSED THE SAME HOLDING THAT THE CONTE NTION WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FILING ITS RETURNS IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO INDICATING THAT PAN OF DEDUCTEES WERE AVAILABLE AND FURTHER THAT SECTION 206AA ENTAILS THAT IN CASE THE DEDUCTEE DOES NOT PROVIDE ITS PAN NUMBER, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL DEDUCT TAX AT HIGHER RATE. THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER STATED THAT PEN ALTY WAS TO BE LEVIED EVEN IF NO LOSS OCCURED TO THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AT PARA 5.5 TO 5.9 OF THE ORDER I S AS UNDER : 5.5 THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HA S BEEN DEDUCTING AND DEPOSITING THE TAX IN TIME, BUT THE T DS RETURNS WERE FILED LATE BECAUSE PANS OF DEDUCTEES WERE NOT READI LY AVAILABLE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE RETURNS WERE UPLOADED AFTER R ECEIPT OF PANS. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN FILING ITS RETURN IN EARLIER YEA RS ALSO INDICATING ITA NOS. 1385&1386 /CHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 PAGE 4 OF 8 THAT PAN OF DEDUCTEE WERE AVAILABLE. HOWEVER, SECTI ON 206AA ENTAILS THAT IN CASE THE DEDUCTEE DOES NOT PROVIDE ITS PAN NUMBER, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL DEDUCT TAX AT A HIGHER RATE. 5.6 THE LD. COUNSEL HAD CONTENDED THAT DELAY IN FILING THE TDS RETURN HAS NOT CAUSED ANY LOSS TO REVENUE. THE PROV ISION UNDER WHICH THE IMPUGNED PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED, NAMELY SECTION 272A(2)(K) STATES THAT IF ANY PERSON FAILS TO DELIV ER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED A COPY OF THE STATEMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME, HE SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY A SUM OF ONE HUNDRED RUPEES FOR EVERY DAY, DURING WHICH T HE DEFAULT CONTINUES. A PLAIN READING OF THE PROVISION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE QUESTION OF DIRECT LOSS OF REVENUE CAN NEVER OCCUR IF THE SPECIFIED STATEMENT IS NOT FILED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. THE SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE PENALTY FOR DELAY IN SUBMISSION O F THE STATEMENT WAS TO BE LEVIED EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NO LOSS TO REV ENUE. THEREFORE, IN SUCH A SITUATION TO PLEAD THAT SINCE THERE IS NO LOSS TO REVENUE, NO PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED WOULD RENDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW OTIOSE. IT HAS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT EVER Y VIOLATION OF LAW DOES NOT NECESSARILY ENTAIL LOSS TO THE EXCHEQUER B UT STILL THERE ARE PENAL PROVISIONS TO ENFORCE THE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN TDS STA TEMENTS IS UTILIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ENSURING PROPER ASSES SMENT OF TAX IN THE CASE OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOSE INCOME, TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. HENCE, WHILE NON-FILING OF STATEMENT BY THE DEDUCTOR MAY NOT ENTAIL A LOSS TO REVENUE IN DEDUCTOR'S CASE, IT MAY RESULT IN LOSS OF REVENUE IN THE CASE OF DEDUCTEES AND SO THE CONT ENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF LOSS TO REVENUE, THE PENALTY IMPOSED HAS TO BE CANCELLED IS WITHOUT ANY MERITS. 5.7 THE LD. COUNSEL HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HO NBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. (83 ITR 26) TO SUPPORT HIS VIEW THAT THE DEFAULT WAS ONLY OF TECHN ICAL AND VENIAL IN NATURE AND THE PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED JUDICIOUSL Y AND HAS A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE AND FL OWS FROM A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT IT IS NOT LIABLE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR NOT FILING THE TDS RETURNS IN TIME AND T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JUDICIALLY EXERCISED HIS POWERS. THEREFORE, THE RATIO OF THIS JUDGEMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE APP ELLANT. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE OTHER JUDGEMENTS QUOTED BY THE APPELLA NT. 5.8 THE APPELLANT IS NOT A FIRST TIME FILER BUT A REGUL AR FILER AND WELL AWARE OF PROVISIONS OF LAW. IT REGULARLY DEDUCTS TA XES AND FILES RETURN. THE BREACH IS ON ACCOUNT OF CONSCIOUS NEGLE CT OF THE APPELLANT AND OUT OF HABIT OF NON FILING EVEN WHEN IT IS VERY MUCH AWARE THAT EVERY YEAR THE LIABILITY IS TO BE DISCHARGED. 5.9 THE PR WAS SUPPOSED TO MANDATORILY FILE TDS RETURNS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, AS PROVIDED IN RULE 31A(2). AS THE PR HAS FAILED TO DO SO, THE PR HAS RIGHTLY BEEN TREATED AS 'ASSES SEE IN DEFAULT' FOR NOT FILING THE TDS RETURNS WITHIN PRESCRIBED PERIOD . THE PENALTY U/S 272A(2)(K) HAS RIGHTLY BEEN IMPOSED AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD AND GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 IS DISMISSED. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER, IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NOS. 1385&1386 /CHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 PAGE 5 OF 8 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN LEVYING A PENALTY OF RS. 65,700/- UNDER SE CTION 272A(2)(K) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT CORRECTLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CAS E. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER TAX APPEALS (I) HAS NOT T AKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT IN THE CASE OF THE SISTER-CONCERNS (SRBS ENTERTAINMENT AND SILVER CITY HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ) OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM , THE LEARNED JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CHANDIGARH HAD IMPOSED PENALTIES U NDER 272A(2)(K) FOR THE SAME YEAR ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS. THE HON'BLE IT AT VIDE I TA 250/CHD/2017 AND ITA 251/CHD/2017 WAS PLEASED TO DELETE THE PENALTIES. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, T O AMEND OR VARY FROM THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE SAID APPEAL. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT HAD A REASONABLE CAUSE F OR THE DELAY BEING THE NON AVAILABILITY OF PAN NUMBER OF THE DED UCTEES AND SINCE THE MENTIONING OF THE PAN NUMBER HAD BEEN MAD E COMPULSORY, IT TOOK A LOT OF TIME TO COLLECT THE CO RRECT PAN NUMBERS LEADING TO DELAY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ITAT HAD DELETED THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 272A(2)(K) IN THE CASE OF M/S SBBS E NTERTAINMENT VS JCIT IN ITA 250/CHD/2017 AND M/S SILVER CITY HOU SING & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS JCIT (TDS) IN ITA 251/CHD/20 17 VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 26.05.2017. COPY OF THE ORDER WAS PLACE D BEFORE US. REFERRING TO THE SAME, IT WAS POINTED OUT FROM PARA 6 OF THE ORDER THAT IN THOSE CASES ALSO, THE DELAY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF NON AVAILABILITY OF PAN NUMBERS, CONSIDERING WHICH THE ITAT HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NO T UPLOADING TDS RETURNS IN TIME AND ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE LE VY OF PENALTY U/S 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS A T PARA 6 & 7 OF THE ORDER ARE AS UNDER : 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FI LED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT HAS BEEN DULY EXPLAINED THEREIN THAT NOW A DAYS THE ONLINE RETURNS ARE FILED / UPLOADED. IN THE REQUIRED COLUMN, THE M ENTIONING OF THE PAN NUMBER OF THE DEDUCTEE IS MANDATORY AND THAT THE RETURN CA N NOT BE UPLOADED WITHOUT MENTIONING OF THE PAN NUMBER. SINCE THE PAN NUMBERS OF SOME PERSONS WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT AT THE PRESCRIBED TIME OF FILING OF RETURN, HENCE, ITA NOS. 1385&1386 /CHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 PAGE 6 OF 8 THE RETURNS COULD NOT BE UPLOADED IN TIME. THE RETU RNS WERE UPLOADED AS SOON AS THE APPELLANT GOT THE PAN NUMBERS OF THE RESPECTIVE DEDUCTEES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN UPLOADING / FILING OF THE TDS WAS NOT INTENTIONAL BUT THERE WAS A REASONA BLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURNS. HE HAS, THEREFORE, PLEADED T HAT THE PENALTY IS NOT INVITED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AS THE APPELLANT HAS SHOW N REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN, WHICH IS DULY COVERED U NDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. 7. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN REASONABLE CAU SE OF THE THE NON AVAILABILITY OF THE PAN NUMBERS OF THE DEDUCTEES FO R WHICH THE APPELLANT COULD NOT UPLOAD THE RETURNS IN TIME. IN OUR VIEW, THE PL EA TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS DULY COVERED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT AND CAN BE SAID TO BE A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN F ILING THE RETURN. THE IMPUGNED PENALTY, IN OUR VIEW, IS NOT WARRANTED IN THIS CASE . WE ACCORDINGLY DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES U/S 272A(2) (K) OF THE ACT. 11. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE ASSE SSEE ,WE FIND ,HAD ATTRIBUTED THE DELAY IN THE FILING OF TDS RETU RNS, ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH PENALTY U/S 272A(2)(K) HAD BEEN LEVIED, TO TH E NON- AVAILABILITY OF CORRECT PAN NUMBERS OF THE DEDUCTEE S WHICH WAS COMPULSORILY REQUIRED FOR FILING/UPLOADING THE TDS RETURNS IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR. THE REVENUE HAS CONTROVERTED THE A BOVE FACTS STATING THAT IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO, THE ASSESSEE WA S FILING TDS RETURNS INDICATING PAN OF THE DEDUCTEE AND THAT AS PER SECTION 206AA IF THE PAN NUMBER IS NOT AVAILABLE, IT COULD HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT A HIGHER RATE. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD.D R AND FIND THAT THE SAME DO NOT CONTROVERT THE CONTENTION AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE TDS RETURN S. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FILING TDS RETURNS IN EARLIER YEARS, QUOTING PAN NUMBERS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY IN FILING TDS RETURN IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR ON ACCOUNT O F THE NON AVAILABILITY OF CORRECT PAN NUMBERS WAS FALSE, SINC E IT IS NOT THE ITA NOS. 1385&1386 /CHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 PAGE 7 OF 8 CASE OF THE REVENUE NOR HAS IT BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY THEM THAT THE DEDUCTEES IN THE EARLIER YEARS WERE SAME AS IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR AND THE RETURNS IN THE EARLIER YEARS WERE FILED IN TIME . IT IS ONLY IF THE FACT SITUATION IN THE EARLIER YEAR OF THE DEDUC TEES BEING THE SAME AS IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE HAVIN G FILED THE RETURN IN TIME IN THE EARLIER YEAR,WOULD IT HAVE HE LPED THE CASE OF THE REVENUE TO PROVE THE EXPLANTION OF THE ASSESSEE OF NON AVAILABILITY OF PAN NOS OF THE DEDUCTEES AS FALSE . EVEN BEFORE US, NO SUCH FACT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. FURTH ER, THE CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE DEDUCTED TA X AT A HIGHER RATE ALSO DOES NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE REVENUE SIN CE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS COMPULSORILY REQUIRED T O QUOTE PAN NUMBERS HAS REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED AND THEREFORE, DEDUCTING TAX AT HIGHER RATE WITHOUT PAN NUMBER WOULD NOT HAV E HELPED THE ASSESSEE TO UPLOAD THE RETURN. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADDUCED REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING TDS RETURN. WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S SBBS ENTERTAINMENT (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE ITAT HAD DEL ETED THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON IDENTICAL EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE A SSESSEE. THE LD. DR HAS FAILED TO BRING OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FACTS FROM THE SAID CASE BEFORE US. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY WAS NOT WARRANTED IN THIS CASE. WE, ACCORD INGLY, DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS. 65,700/- U/S 272A(2)(K) OF TH E ACT. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ITA 1386/CHD/2018 ITA NOS. 1385&1386 /CHD/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 PAGE 8 OF 8 13. THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF M/S HARI CODE IN ITA 1386/CHD/2018 ,IT WAS COMMON GROUND,WERE EXACTL Y IDENTICAL TO THAT IN ITA 1385/CHD/2018 ADJUDICATED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE SAID CASE WILL APPL Y TO THE PRESENT CASE ALSO AND ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY LEVIED IN TH IS CASE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 15. IN A FACT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.04.2019. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( # $ % &' ) (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUP TA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER '( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER POONAM (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / / CIT 4. $ / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , & 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7% / GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER, 8 # / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR