Sh. Dinesh Dua, Delhi V. DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh

ITA 1475/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1303 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2018
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K BHASIN
• Keywords: Revision of order; Revised return
• Section: 54F; 142(1); 153A; 139(5); 132; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1474/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SH. DINESH DUA, VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, A-103, NARANG COLONY, CHANDIGARH JANAKPURI WEST, DELHI-110058 PAN NO. AADPD0227D (APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) -3,GURGAON DATE D 4.8.2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 311/CIT(A)-3/GGN/2013-14) ITA NO. 1476/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SH. DINESH DUA, VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, A-103, NARANG COLONY, CHANDIGARH JANAKPURI WEST, DELHI-110058 PAN NO. AADPD0227D (APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) -3,GURGAON DATE D 4.8.2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 312/CIT(A)-3/GGN/2013-14) ITA NO. 1475/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SH. DINESH DUA, VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, A-103, NARANG COLONY, CHANDIGARH JANAKPURI WEST, DELHI-110058 PAN NO. AADPD0227D (APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) -3,GURGAON DATE D 11.8.2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 307/CIT(A)-3/GGN/2013-14) APPELLANT BY : SH. S.K. BHASIN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANOJ MISHRA, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.09. 2018 ITA NOS. 1474 TO1476/CHD/2017 & 378, 379 & 395/CHD/2016- DINESH DUA, DELHI 2 & ITA NO. 378, 379 & 395/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 SH. DINESH DUA, VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, A-103, NARANG COLONY, CHANDIGARH JANAKPURI WEST, DELHI-110058 PAN NO. AADPD0227D (APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) -3,GURGAON DAT ED 25.2.2016 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.. 306, 308 & 309/CIT(A)-3/GGN/2013-14 RE SPECTIVELY) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. S.K. BHASIN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.09. 2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE INTERLINKED / IDENTICAL, HENCE , THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. FIRST, WE TAKE UP ITA NO. 1474/CHD/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA NO. 1474/CHD/2017 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GURGAON IS BAD AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, DISALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS. ITA NOS. 1474 TO1476/CHD/2017 & 378, 379 & 395/CHD/2016- DINESH DUA, DELHI 3 1,32,533/- U/S 24(B) ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME W AS NOT CLAIMED AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURN U/S 139(1) . 3 THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FROM THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT 'THE ACT') PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH ACTION CARRIED OUT U/ S 132 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES. SO FAR AS THE LAW RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ADDITION MA DE INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CARR IED OUT U/S 153A OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE ISSUE IS NO MORE RES I NTEGRA IN THE LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS AND DECISIONS OF HON'BLE H IGH COURTS OF THE COUNTY WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS HAVE BEEN UN ANIMOUS TO HOLD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATER IAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION, WHEN THERE WAS NO PENDING ASSESS MENT WHICH CAN BE SAID TO HAVE ABATED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE A DDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE. RELIANCE IN THIS RESPECT CAN BE PLACED ON THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M URLI AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ITA NO.36 OF 2009, CIT VS. CONT INENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ITA NO. 523 OF 2013 REPORT ED IN (2015) 279 CTR 0389 (BOMBAY), CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA 234 T AXMAN 300 (DELHI) AND SUBSEQUENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF PRI NCIPAL CIT VS. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP M/S FERNS N PETALS (SUPRA). HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AGITATED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDING ITA NOS. 1474 TO1476/CHD/2017 & 378, 379 & 395/CHD/2016- DINESH DUA, DELHI 4 U/S 153A IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERI AL FOUND DURING SEARCH ACTION, RATHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THA T HE MAY BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 24(B), WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS 2008-09. THE RETURN U/S 1 39(1) OF THE ACT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.7.2008 AND THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAD EXPIRED ON 30.09.2009 WHEREA S THE SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE PR EMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 17.9.2010, WHICH MEANS THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION STOOD COMPLETED AND NOT ABATED AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH HENCE, AS LAID DOWN BY TH E HON'BLE HIGH COURTS OF THE COUNTRY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE MADE ADDITION INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPEC T OF ANY ASPECT RELATING TO WHICH NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOU ND UNDER THE SEARCH ACTION. 5. IN OUR VIEW, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT TOUCH OR LOOK INTO ANY OTHER ASPECT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMI NATING MATERIAL AND HE HAS PRECLUDED TO MAKE ANY ADDITION IN THE AB SENCE OF THE RECOVERY OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELATING TO THAT ISSUE DURING THE SEARCH ACTION CARRIED OUT U/S 132 OF THE ACT, T HEN THAT PROPOSITION WILL ALSO HAVE TO BE APPLIED REVERSELY ALSO DEBA RRING THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE CLAIM OF ANY DEDUCTION OR EXEMPTION OR OTHERW ISE, WHICH ISSUE CANNOT BE LOOKED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTI ON. THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE VARIOUS HIGH CO URTS IN THIS RESPECT IS TO BE APPLIED TO BOTH THE PARITIES I.E. REVENUE AS WELL TO ITA NOS. 1474 TO1476/CHD/2017 & 378, 379 & 395/CHD/2016- DINESH DUA, DELHI 5 THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF JAI STEEL (INDIA) V. ACIT (2013) 259 CTR 281 HAS HELD THAT IN CASE NOTHING INCRIMINATING IS FOUND ON ACCOUNT OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION, THE QUESTION OF REASSESSMENT OF THE CONCLUDED ASSES SMENT DOES NOT ARISE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO SEEK DEDUCTION OR CLAIM EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN C LAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL AND ALREADY CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT, IN THE C ASE OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A IN PURSUANCE OF SEARCH ACTION. HONBLE HI GH COURT REJECTED THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT ONCE THE NOTICE U/S. 153A IS ISSUED, THE ASSESSMENT S FOR SIX YEARS ARE AT LARGE BOTH FOR THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS B EEN FURTHER HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 153A TO 153C CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO BE FURTHER INNINGS TO THE AO AND/OR ASSESSEE BEYOND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(RETURN OF INCO ME), 139(5) (REVISED RETURN OF INCOME), 147 (INCOME ESCAPING AS SESSMENT) AND 263(REVISION OF ORDERS) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE HIG H COURT HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE WORDS ASSESS OR RE-ASS ESS HAVE BEEN USED AT MORE THAN ONE PLACE IN THE SECTION AND A HA RMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE PROVISION WOULD LEAD TO AN IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION THAT THE WORD ASSESS HAS BEEN USED IN THE CONTEXT OF ABATED PROCEEDINGS AND REASSESS HAS BEEN USED FOR COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WOULD NOT ABATE AS TH EY ARE NOT PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH OR MAKING OF REQUISITION AND WHICH WOULD ALSO NECESSARILY SUPPOR T THE INTERPRETATION THAT FOR THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS, THE SAME CAN BE TINKERED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL FOUND DURING ITA NOS. 1474 TO1476/CHD/2017 & 378, 379 & 395/CHD/2016- DINESH DUA, DELHI 6 THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS. T HE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHILE REPRODUCING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K P VARGHESE V. ITO (1981) 24 CTR 358 THAT IT IS RECOGNIZED RULE OF CONSTRUCT ION THAT A STATUTORY PROVISO MUST BE SO CONSTRUED, IF POSSIBLE , THAT ABSURDITY AND MISCHIEF MAY BE AVOIDED HAS OBSERVED THAT IF THE A RGUMENT OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE ACCEPTED, IT WOU LD MEAN THAT EVEN IN CASE WHERE THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE COMPLETE D ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) OR TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT, ON A NOTICE ISSUES U/S. 153A OF THE ACT, THE AO WOULD HA VE POWER TO UNDO WHAT HAS BEEN CONCLUDED BY THE HIGH COURT. ANY INTE RPRETATION WHICH LEADS TO SUCH CONCLUSION HAS TO BE REPELLED AND/OR AVOIDED AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K P VARGHE SE (SUPRA). 6. SO FAR AS THE RELIANCE OF THE LD. COUNSEL ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MR . A. SRINIVAS RAMA RAJU, HYDERABAD VS. DCIT , ITA NO. 975/HYD/201 5 ORDER DATED 19.8.2016, WE FIND THAT IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED WAS 2010-11 AND THE RETURN WAS FIELD ON 3 1.7.2010, WHEREAS THE SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE PR EMISES OF ASSESSEE ON 17.9.2010, WHICH MEANS THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 STOOD ABATED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AN D, HENCE, IT WAS OPEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LOOK INTO EAC H AND EVERY ASPECT RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD SINCE BEEN COMPLETED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND NOT ABATED, HENCE, AS PE R THE SETTLED LAW, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER TO MAK E ANY ADDITION OR ITA NOS. 1474 TO1476/CHD/2017 & 378, 379 & 395/CHD/2016- DINESH DUA, DELHI 7 TO ALLOW CLAIM OF ANY DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE ON AN ISSUE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN THAT RESP ECT FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION. SO, IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS DECI SIONS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THERE IS NOT MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1476/CHD/2017 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GURGAON IS BAD AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, DISALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS. 33,55,054/- U/S 54 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WA S NOT CLAIMED AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURN U/S 139(1). 8 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH ACT ION WAS CARRIED OUT U/S 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ' THE ACT') AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 17.9.2010. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE REVISED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 3,89,6 55/- BEING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 33,55,054/- ON SALE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUS E PROPERTY. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE SAID LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 33,55,054/- ON THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY SINCE HE HAD INVESTED THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN IN THE PURCHASE OF ANOTHER R ESIDENTIAL HOUSE ITA NOS. 1474 TO1476/CHD/2017 & 378, 379 & 395/CHD/2016- DINESH DUA, DELHI 8 WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD AS PER THE REQU IREMENTS OF THE ACT. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DISALLOWED EXEM PTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT FROM THE SAID CAPITAL GAIN ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT CLAIMED AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURN U/S 139(1) AND THE SAID LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 33,55,054/- WAS ADDED BACK IN COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2 011-12. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RELATION TO THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT STOOD ABATED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. HENCE, IT WAS OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LOOK INTO AND EXAMINE EACH AND EVERY ASPECT RELATING TO THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CARRIED OUT U/S 153A OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN RELATION TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF I NCOME FILED U/S 153A OF THE ACT. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U /S 153A DECLARING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME AT THE MOST CAN BE SAID TO BE A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO L OOK INTO EACH AND EVERY ASPECT OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDI NG THE EXEMPTIONS OR DEDUCTIONS AS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER T HE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION IS NOT A YEAR RELATING TO WHICH THE ASSESSMENT STOOD COMPL ETED, RATHER IT WAS A YEAR IN RELATION TO WHICH THE PENDING ASSESSM ENT, IF ANY, STOOD ABATED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH ACTION. IN VIEW OF TH IS, THE ASSESSEE IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION AS AVAILABLE TO HIM UNDER THE ITA NOS. 1474 TO1476/CHD/2017 & 378, 379 & 395/CHD/2016- DINESH DUA, DELHI 9 RELEVANT PROVISIONS IN RELATION TO THE INCOME DECLA RED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 153A OF THE ACT. 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT. HOWEVER, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE DENIED THE DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE NEW RESIDENTIAL H OUSE WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SALE OF THE ASSET IN QUESTION. AT THIS STAGE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A STATEMENT AT BA R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PAYMENT IN INSTALLMENTS TO A BUILDER FOR HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED / UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE LD. CO UNSEL HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE SATISFIED IF HE MAY BE AL LOWED DEDUCTION U/S 54 / 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT / PAYM ENTS MADE AFTER THE DATE OF SALE OF THE ASSET. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRE CT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE THE DEDUCTIONS AS MA Y BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 54 / 54F IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE / PAYMENTS MADE TO THE BUILDER / D EVELOPER AFTER THE DATE OF SALE OF ASSET IN QUESTION. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATE D AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 1475/CHD/2017 AND ITA NOS. 378, 379 & 395/CHD/2016 11. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS ID ENTICAL, THESE HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE ITA NO. 1475/CHD/2017 IS TAKEN AS A LEAD CASE FOR DISCUSSION. 12. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CERTAIN ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 153A OF ITA NOS. 1474 TO1476/CHD/2017 & 378, 379 & 395/CHD/2016- DINESH DUA, DELHI 10 THE ACT PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH ACTION CARRIED OUT A T THE PREEMIES OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 132 OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, N O INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH IN RESPECT OF INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 153A OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THA T IT IS A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR C ONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, I T IS NOT A FIT CASE OF LEVY OF PENALTY AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED TO BE DELETED. THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. 14. TO SUM UP, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DEC IDED AS UNDER:- 1. ITA NO. 1474/CHD/2017 DISMISSED. 2. ITA NO. 1476/CHD/2017 PARTLY ALLOWED. 3. ITA NO. 1475/CHD/2-017 ALLOWED. 4. ITA NOS. 378, 379 & 295/CHD/2016 ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.09.2018 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 07.9.2018 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT THE CIT(A) THE DR