Shaktiman Rahi, Patna V. DCIT, Patna

ITA 149/PAT/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1192 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K RASTOGI
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Block assessment; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 147; 132; 139

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 149 TO 158/PAT/2014. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH, PATNA. BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (S.M.C.) S.NO. I.T.A. NO. ASSTT. YEAR. 1. 149/PAT/2014 2004 - 05 2. 150/PAT/2014 2005 - 06 3. 151/PAT/2014 2006 - 07 4. 152/PAT/2014 2007 - 08 5. 153/PAT/2014 2008 - 09. SRI SHAKTIMAN RAHI, DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, PATNA . VS. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, PATNA. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. S.NO. I.T.A. NO. ASSTT. YEAR. 6. 1 54 /PAT/2014 2004 - 05 7. 1 55 /PAT/2014 2005 - 06 8. 15 6 /PAT/2014 2006 - 07 9. 15 7 /PAT/2014 2007 - 08 10. 15 8 /PAT/2014 2008 - 09. SRI SAMTA RAHI, DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, PATNA. VS. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, PATNA. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. RASTOGI. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K. MISHRA. DATE OF HEARING : 05 - 08 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 TH AUGUST, 2016 2 ITA NOS. 149 TO 158/PAT/2014. O R D E R THESE ARE APPEALS BY TWO ASSESSEES AGAINST RESPECTIVE COMMON ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS RESPECTIVELY. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED PERTAINS TO CONFIRMATION OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) AS UNDER : SRI SHAKTIMAN RAHI . ASSESSMENT YEAR PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) 2004 - 05 RS. 56,275/ - 2005 - 06 RS.57,372/ - 2006 - 07 RS.13,227/ - 2007 - 08 RS.27,876/ - 2008 - 09 RS.27,831/ - SRI SAMTA RAHI. 2004 - 05 RS.7,520/ - 2005 - 06 RS.64,261/ - 2006 - 07 RS.14,644/ - 2007 - 08 RS. 4,274/ - 2008 - 09 RS. 7,594/ - 2. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDEN TICAL, THE ISSUE RAISED IS BEING ADJUDICATED WITH REFERENCE TO FACTS AND FIGURES FROM THE CASE OF SRI SHAKTIMAN RAHI. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ARE AS UNDER : PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C WERE INITIATED FOR A.YS. 2004 - 05 TO 2008 - 09. PURSUANT THERETO RETURN S OF INCOME WERE FILED. THE ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE ACCEPTING THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN S FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C . FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE A CHART DEMONSTRATING THE INCOME RETURNED AND ASSESSED IS DRAWN BE LOW : 3 ITA NOS. 149 TO 158/PAT/2014. SHAKTIMAN RAHI. A.Y. INCOME RETURNED U/S 153C. INCOME ASSESSED INCOME RETURNED ORIGINALLY U/S 139. 2004 - 05 RS.2,89,450 RS.2,89,450 RS.77,800 2005 - 06 RS.3,11,240 RS.3,11,240 RS.1,05,000 2006 - 07 RS.1,93,930 RS.1,93,930 RS.1,05,586 2007 - 08 RS.2,62,350 RS.2,62,350 RS.1,08,290 2008 - 09 RS.2,63,630 RS.2,63,630 RS.1,13,576 THE AO HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE HAS BEEN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 139 VIS - - VIS THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C AND HAS ACCORDINGLY INVOKED EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) FOR THE PURPOSES OF CEMENTING THE CASE OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. 4. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE MADE ELABORATE SUBM ISSIONS WHICH READ AS UNDER : IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT ON BARE READING OF SECTION 153A IT IS SEEN THAT THIS SECTION STARTS WITH A NON OBSTANTE CAUSE RELATING TO NORMAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE COVERED BY SECTION 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153 IN RE SPECT OF SEARCHES MADE AFTER 31.05.2003. THE SECTIONS SO EXCLUDE, RELATE TO FILING OF RETURN, ASSESSMENT AND REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER SECTION 153A INTENDS TO ASSESS OR TOTAL INCOME OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE. THUS THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION IS NOT TO ASSESSEE ESCAPED INCOME AS IN SECTION 147 OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS WAS ASSESSED U/S 158BC. THE FIST PROVISO TO SECTION 153A MAKES IT CLEAR THAT NOTICE U/S 153A WILL BE TO EACH OF SUCH SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME. SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A PROVIDES THAT SUCH NOTICE WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF ABATING ALL THE PENDING ASSESSMENTS, WHICH WAS A FEATURE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT. 4 ITA NOS. 149 TO 158/PAT/2014. 5. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ABATEMENT (SECO ND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A MEANS AN ACT OF ELIMINATING OR NULLIFYING OR SUSPENSION OF DEFEAT OF A PENDING ACTION (290 ITR 114 - ABHAY KUMAR SHROFF VS. CIT & ORS.) BY VIRTUE OF EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN SECOND PROVISO, NO COGNIZANCE IS REQUIRE D TO BE TAKEN ON THE RETURN FILED U/S 139 AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEES HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO FILE RETURNS AFRESH FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS AS PER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A. 6. THUS, THERE IS COMPLETE DETACHMENT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143 OR 1 47 FROM SEARCH PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A. WHEN SCHEME OF SEARCH ASSESSMENT AS DESIGNED BY THE LEGISLATURE DOES NOT PRESCRIBED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHETHER ABATED OR NOT, IT WILL NOT BE PROPER OF JUSTIFIED TO REFER TO RETURNED INCOME U/S 139 FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). IT FOLLOWS THAT THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A. ACCORDINGLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) RESULTING A S A RESULT OF SEARCH ASSESSMENTS MADE U/S 153A THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED. IF THERE IS NO VARIATION, THERE WILL BE NO CONCEALMENT. WHEN THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT, QUESTION OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) DOES NOT ARISE. THE CONCEPT OF VOLUNTARY RETURN OF INCOME MAY BE IMPORTANT IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN COURSE OF NORMAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MADE U/S 143(3) OR 147 BUT NOT UNDER SECTION 153A. 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURNS FILED U/S 153C AND THE ASSESSMENT MADE. AS PER SCHEME OF THE ACT CONTAINED IN SECTION 153A THE PROCEEDINGS OF SIX YEARS PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH GETS ABATED AND ACCORDINGLY THE RETURN FILED U/S 139 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY THE SCOPE OF EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS EXAMINED BY THE HONBLE A BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF KIRAN SHAH, MUMBAI IN ITA NO. 5919 TO 5925/MUM/2011 DATED 08.01.2014 (COPY ENCLOSED) AND THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL ON CONSIDERATION OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT (REFERRED TO ABOVE) AND THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENCES HAVE HELD. 8. IN ANOTHER CASE BEFORE THE NAGPUR BENCH IN ITA NOS. 150 TO 155/NAG/10, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT WHERE RETURNED INCOME FILED U/S 153A IS A CCEPTED BY THE AO AND THERE IS NO VARIATION IN ASSESSED INCOME 11 SHRI KARAN SHAH AND RETURNED INCOME, PENALTY U/S 271(1) CANNOT BE IMPOSED. IN ANOTHER CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF VIRAJLAL T. GALA VS. ACIT 33 TAXMANN. COM 620 WHER E THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT EXPLANATION 5 COULD NOT APPLICABLE TO ASSESSEES CASE AS IT HAD NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE OWNER OF ANY OF ASSET MENTIONED IN EXPLANATION. 5 ITA NOS. 149 TO 158/PAT/2014. IT WAS HELD YES AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL AT PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. PRAMILA D. ASHTEKAR VS. ITO 39 TAXMANN. COM 103 HAS ONCE AGAIN REITERATED THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL BY HOLDING THAT WHEN THERE IS NO ADDITION OVER AND ABOVE THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A, NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS TO BE IMPOSED. 9. BEFORE CLOSING, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN VERY CONSISTENT IN TAKING VIEW AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE. THE APPREHENSION OF THE LEARNED DR THAT EXPLANATI ON WOULD BECOME REDUNDANT DO NOT HAVE ANY FORCE AND AS THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE CONSISTENT IN THEIR OWN VIEWS, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO REFER THE MATTER UNDER DISPUTE TO A SPECIAL BENCH. REQUEST OF THE LEARNED DR IS DEN IED. 5. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS. HE AFFIRMED THE PENALTY HOLDING AS UNDER : 10. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. I AM NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THAT THE ISSUE OF CONCEALMENT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED WITH RESPECT TO THE RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C. THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5A OF SECTION 271(1)(C) WERE BROUGHT ON THE STATUTE WITH EFFECT FROM 01.07.2007. THE EXPLANATION CLEARLY RULES THAT WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE SAID DATE AND THE INCOME HAS BEEN DECLARED THEREIN, IT WOULD BE DEEMED THAT PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAVE BEEN CONCEALED OR INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAVE BEEN FURNI SHED . I N THE APPELLANTS CASE THE RETURNS WERE DULY FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WHEREIN THE RETURNED INCOME DID NOT REFLECT THE FULL STATE OF AFFAIRS. THE INCOME RETURNED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C IS HIGHER THAN THAT FILED U/S 139(1) AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED IS DEEMED TO BE INCOME CONCEALED. IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT THE CONCEALMENT HAS BE WITH REFERENCE TO THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C. THE ACT OF CONCEALMENT HAS TO BE VIEWED WITH REFERENCE TO THE INCOME THAT WAS REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED ON THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED U/S 139. 11. THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENT THAT ALL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH WOULD ABATE CANNOT BE HELD TO NULLIF Y THE POINT THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 139. THE ABATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS IS ONLY TO AVOID DUPLICATION OF THE WHOLE PROCESS OF ASSESSMENT WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE U/S 153A/153C AND IN THIS CONTEXT PEND ING PROCEEDINGS ARE SOUGHT TO BE BROUGHT TO AN END. THE WHOLE PROCESS OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION WOULD STAND TO BE 6 ITA NOS. 149 TO 158/PAT/2014. NULLIFIED IF THERE IS NO PENALTY FOR ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C AS COMPARED TO THAT REQUIRED TO BE DECLARED U/S 139. THIS WOULD RESULT IN UNDUE BEING GIVEN TO THE PERSON IN WHOSE CASE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IS CONDUCTED AND WOULD BE AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE HONEST TAXPAYERS. THE INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN TO REWARD THE DISH ONEST TAXPAYERS VIS - - VIS THE HONEST TAXPAYERS AND ACCORDINGLY I AM NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENTS IN THIS REGARD. THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 7. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES RETURNED INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. FURTHER MORE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND IN THE SEARCH. HENCE L EARNED COUNSEL PLEADED THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. FOR THIS PROPOSITION LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE UPON A CATENA OF CASE LAWS. 8. PER CONTRA LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS BECAU SE OF THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED AND DECLARATION MADE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED THE INCOME PURSUANT TO SEARCH U/S 153C WHICH WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE RETURN SUBMITTED ORIGINALLY U/S 139(1). LEARNED D.R. IN THIS REGARD ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ITAT, PUN E BENCH DECISION IN ITA NOS. 1251 TO 1254/PN/2013 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI RAHUL SHANTARAM SAWALE VIDE ORDER DATED 29 - 01 - 2016 AND ALSO ITA NO.1562/PN/2013 IN THE CASE OF MRS. SARITA KAUR MANJEET SINGH CHOPRA VS. ITO VIDE ORDER DATED 30 - 10 - 2015. 9. IN R EJOINDER LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE DECISIONS FROM PUNE TRIBUNAL IN FACT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THESE ORDERS THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO UPHELD DE LETION OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE ASSE SSEE WHEN NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WERE FOUND LEADING TO ADDITION. 7 ITA NOS. 149 TO 158/PAT/2014. 10. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER I MAY GAINFULL Y REFER TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) EXPLANATION 5A AS APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH READ AS UNDER : WHERE, IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF (I) ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING (HEREINAFTER IN THIS EXPLANATION REFERRED TO AS ASSETS) AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SUCH ASSETS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY HIM BY UTILIZING (WHOLLY OR IN PART) HIS INCO ME FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, OR (II) ANY INCOME BASED ON ANY ENTRY IN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS AND HE CLAIMED THAT SUCH ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS REPRESENTS HIS INCOME (WHOLLY OR IN PART) FOR AN Y PREVIOUS YEAR, WHICH HAS ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AND, - (A) WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE SAID DATE BUT SUCH INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED THEREIN; OR (B) THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETUR N OF INCOME FOR SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR HAS EXPIRED BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN, THEN, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH INCOME IS DECLARED BY HIM IN ANY RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH, HE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SUB - SECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION, BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 11. A READING OF THE ABOVE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE SAID EXPLANATION IS ATTRACTE D ONLY WHERE DURING THE SEARCH MATERIALS OR ENTRIES ARE FOUND SHOWING 8 ITA NOS. 149 TO 158/PAT/2014. INCOME WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN EARLIER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, READING OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT , ENTRY OR INCOME FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PENALTY PROVISIONS U/S 271(1)(C) ARE NOT ATTRACTED. READING OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW INDICATE THAT THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE ADDITION MADE WITH THE INCRIMINATIN G MATERIAL OR ANY OTHER THING FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ITAT, PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAHUL SHANTARAM SAWALE (SUPRA) IN PARA NO. 19 NOTED THAT THE SAID ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS AND NO INFORMATION IN THIS REGARD WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THIS POSITION IS SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS CASE LAWS OF O THER BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AS UNDER : ITAT NAGPUR BENCH DECISION IN ITA NOS. 150 TO 159/NAG/201 0 . ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI KIRAN SHAH IN ITA NOS.5919 TO 5925/MUM/2011. 12 FURTHER MORE I WOULD ALSO PLACE RELIANCE UPON HONBLE APE X COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA 83 ITR 26 RE NDERED BY A LARGER BENCH OF 3 LORDSHIPS, THAT PENALTY EVEN WHERE MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRIBED MAY NOT BE LEVIED IF THE ASSESSEES CONDUCT IS NOT FOUND TO BE CONTUMACIOUS. 13. ACCORDINGLY IN THE BACKGROUND OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENT, I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE LEVY OF PENALTY. 9 ITA NOS. 149 TO 158/PAT/2014. 14. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DATED: 26 TH AUGUST, 2016. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. SRI SHAKTIMAN RAHI, 2. SHRI SAMTA RAHI, 203B, PARADISE APARTMENT, EAST LOHANIPUR, KADMKUM PATNA. 3. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, PATNA. 4. C.I.T. - , PATNA. 5. CIT(APPEALS), - I, PATNA. 6. D.R., ITAT, PATNA. 7. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, P A T N A BENCH, P A T N A . WAKODE.