Mr. Abdul Azim Ladsab Telgi, Khanapur V. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

ITA 1507/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0346 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNDAR RAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K Y NINGOJI RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Reasonable cause
• Section: 234B; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM (SMC) ITA NOS. 1511 AND 1514 TO1517 (B)/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 & 2001-02) AND ITA NOS.1507, 1509 & 1512(B)/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97, 2000-01 & 2001-02) AND ITA NOS.1508, 1510 & 1513(B)/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97, 2000-01 & 2001-02) SHRI ABDUL AZIM LADSAB TELGI, L/R OF SHARIFA BI LADSAB TELGI , NO.1456/1, VIDYANAGAR, KHANAPUR-591 302 DIST. BELGAUM PAN NO.AIEPT4675L APPELLANT VS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.Y.NINGOJI RAO, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI SUNDAR RAJAN, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 06-06-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-06 -2016 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM: ALL THESE ELEVEN APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A), MYSORE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1996-97 TO 2001-02. OUT OF THESE APPEALS, FIVE AP PEALS ARE ARISING IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-9 7 TO 1999 2000 & ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 2 2001-02 AND THE REMAINING APPEALS ARE IN PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) AND 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996- 97, 2000-01 & 2001-02. 2. I TAKE UP THE QUANTUM APPEALS FIRST. FIRST QUA NTUM APPEAL IS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 I.E. ITA NOS.1511(B)/2014. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO S ET ASIDE IN SO FAR AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, I MPROPER, IRREGULAR AND OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144R.W.S.147 OF THE IT ACT, IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASI DE IN SO FAR AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, IMPROPER, IRREGUL AR AND OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT ASSUMING PROPER JURISDICTION. . 3. THAT THE ORDER OF LD CIT (A), MYSORE ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.65,000/- MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS THE HAJ EXPENSES WITHOUT ASSUMING JURISDICT ION UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF IT ACT, 1961 AND A S SUCH THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 4. THAT THELD.CIT(A) MYSORE ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.65,000/- MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS THE HAJ EXPENSES WITH COMPLETE DISREGARD TO THE FACTS FOUND BY THE IT AUTHORITIES THAT THE APPELLANT WAS RECEIVING MONIE S FROM HER SONS AND THAT HER HAJ EXPENSES WERE MET BY HER SONS AND AS SUCH THE SAME IS LIABLE TO SET ASIDE. ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 3 5. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)MYSORE ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,000/- MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS HER PERSONAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WITH COMPLETE DISREGARD TO THE FACTS FOUND BY THE IT AUTHORITIES THAT THE APPELLAN T WAS LIVING WITH HER SON LATE ABDUL RAHIM TELGI AND HER EXPENSES WERE ALSO MET BY HIM AND AS SUCH THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 6. THAT THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A AN D 234B ARE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE IN SO FAR AS THE AP PELLANT IS NOT LIABLE THERE FOR. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION AND GRO UND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, THAT GROUND IS REJEC TED AS NOT PRESSED. REGARDING THE GROUND NO.3 & 4, HE SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGES 13 & 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE ENTIR E PERIOD FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 TO 2001-02. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO AO IN THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THE SAME WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAD OBTAIN ED REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO IN RESPECT OF THIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT. TH EREAFTER, HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT APPEARING ON PAGE NO.13 & 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE AMOUNT OF RS.65,000/- INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF HAJ EXPENSES IS SHOWN AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS IN THIS YEAR AND EVEN AFTER THAT, THERE IS ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 4 CLOSING CASH BALANCE OF RS.3,26,800/- AND THEREFORE , THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I FIND THAT THIS ADDITION WAS UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS BASIS THAT ALTHOUGH, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT SHE WAS IN RECEI PT FROM HER SONS, IT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, FOR AN E XPENDITURE OF RS.65,000/- INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF HAJ BY AN OLD LA DY, IT IS QUITE NATURAL THAT GENERALLY, SHE WILL RECEIVE THE AMOUNT FROM HE R SON AND THEREFORE, IF THE SON CANNOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY, ADD ITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE SON BUT IN THE HANDS OF THE OLD LA DY, ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND IT IS NOT EXPECTED THAT SHE WOULD KEE P A HARD EVIDENCE FOR ESTABLISHING THE RECEIPT OF THIS SMALL AMOUNT OF HA J EXPENSES FROM HER SON. I THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION IN THE FACTS OF TH E PRESENT CASE. 7. REGARDING GROUND NO.5, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE L D. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE SAME CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE PERSONAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.10,000/-. IN THIS REGARD, HE HAS DRAWN MY ATTENTION TO PARA 5.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHER E THE AO HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HER SON ALONG WITH 2-3 RELATIVES A RE RESIDING AT A BUNGLOW IN KHANAPUR. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THESE WERE N OTED IN THIS PARA THAT THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE INCLUDING MAINTENANCE OF BUNGLOW IS ESTIMATED AROUND RS.4,0000/- PER MONTH. IN THE NEXT PARA, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,000/- PER MONTH. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE T OTAL EXPENSES IS ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 5 ESTIMATED BY THE AO AT RS.4,000/- PER MONTH FOR 5 P ERSONS THEN HOW THE ESTIMATE OF RS.2,000/- PER MONTH FOR THE ASSESSEE I S JUSTIFIED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT 1/5 TH OF RS.4,0000/- PER MONTH IS RS.800/- PER MONTH AND IN THAT SITUATION, RS.10,000/-IS SUFFICIENT TO TAKE CARE OF ASSESSEES HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RS.10,000/- EXPENSE IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED ON THIS ACCOUNT. 8. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE I FIND THAT THE AO HIMSELF NOTED IN PARA 5.5 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSE SSEE AND HER SON MR. ABDUL AZIM LADSAB TELGI ALONG WITH 2/3 RELATIVES HA VE BEEN RESIDING AT A BUNGALOW IN KHANAPUR AND THE AO ESTIMATED THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENDITURE INCLUDING THE MAINTENANCE OF BUNGALOW AT RS.4,000/- PER MONTH AND THEREAFTER, HE ESTIMATED THE EXPENSES OF THE ASSESS EE AT RS.2,000/- PER MONTH. IT MEANS THAT THE EXPENSES OF RS.4,000/- PER MONTH IS FOR 5 PERSONS I.E. ASSESSEE HER SON AND 3 RELATIVES AND T HEREFORE, 1/5 TH OF THIS EXPENSES IS OF RS.800/- PER MONTH AND THEN DRAWING OF RS. 10,000/- IN THE YEAR IS SUFFICIENT TO TAKE CARE OF ASSESSEES HOUSE HOLD EXPENDITURE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 10,0000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, T HEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED ON HIS ACCOUNT. I THEREFORE, DELETE THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ALLOWED. ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 6 10. GROUND NO.6 IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND NO SEPARATE AD JUDICATION IS CALLED FOR. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 12. NOW I TAKE UP QUANTUM APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 1997-98 IN ITA NO.1516(B)/2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS; 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO S ET ASIDE IN SO FAR AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, I MPROPER, IRREGULAR AND OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144R.W.S.147 OF THE IT ACT IS LIABLE TO ANNULMENT I NSOFAR AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, IMPROPER, IRREGULAR AND OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND H AS BEEN MADE WITHOUT ASSUMING PROPER JURISDICTION. 3. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144 R.W.S.147 OF THE IT ACT IS LIABLE TO ANNULMENT AND IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, IMPROPER, IRREGULAR AND OPPOSED TO LAW IN SO FAR AS AS THE SAME IS MADE OPPOSED TO SEC.159 OF THE IT AC T, 1961 AND BY NOT BRINGING ON RECORDS ALL THE LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHARIFA BI LADSAB TELGI AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS SUCH THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE . 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) MYSORE ERRED IN SUSTAINING T HE ADDITION OF RS.62,500/- MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS ALLE GED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY NO.1456/A, VIDYA NAGAR, KHANAPUR WITHOUT ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER THE RE LEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND WITH COMPLETE DI SREGARD TO THE DECLARATION OF RS.58,600/- MADE BY THE DECEASED ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 7 ASSESSEE UNDER THE VDIS 1997 AND AS SUCH THE SAME I S LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) MYSORE ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT OF RS.36,000/- MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS IN COME FROM PROPERTY WITH COMPLETE DISREGARD TO THE DECLAR ATION OF RS.1,10,000/- MADE BY THE DECEASED ASSESSEE FOR THE AY: 1997-98 UNDER THE VDIS 1997 AND AS SUCH THE SAME IS LIABLE TO SET ASIDE. 6. THAT THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B ARE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE IN SO FAR AS THE APPELLA NT IS NOT LIABLE THERE FOR. 13. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION AND GRO UND NO.2 TO 3 OF THE APPEAL ARE NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, THOSE GROUND S NO. 2 TO 3 ARE REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DOCUMENTS IN EVIDENCE OF THE DECLARATION MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE UNDER VDIS 97 AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 57- 67 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE HAS DRAWN MY ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 58 OF THE PAP ER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS VERY PROPERTY BEARING TMC NO.1456/A/KHANA PUR HAVING VALUE OF RS.58,600/- WAS DISCLOSED IN VDIS 97 AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED. 14. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 15. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SINCE THE VERY PROPERTY WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER VDIS 97 AND TAX WAS PAID, NO ADDITION IS ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 8 JUSTIFIED ALTHOUGH, NO CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY TH E LD. CIT U/S 68(2) OF VDIS, 1997, AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MR. ABDUL AZEEM TELGI IN ITA NO.1348 & 1349(BANG)/2015 DATED 29-04-2016, COP Y AVAILABLE ON RECORD. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS TRIBUNALS DEC ISION AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESS EE UNDER VDIS 1997, THIS ADDITION IS DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16. REGARDING GROUND NO.5 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE L D. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98, ASSESSEE DECLARED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,10,000/- UNDER VDIS 1997 AND THEREFORE, THIS I NCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY STANDS INCLUDED IN THAT DECLARATION AND T HEREFORE, THIS ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 17. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 18. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIN D THAT AS PER PAGE NO.58 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,10,000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 199798 ON ACCO UNT OF CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE BUT IT IS NOWHERE STATED THAT TH IS DECLARATION IS ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE , I FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREF ORE, THIS ADDITION IS CONFIRMED. GROUND NO.5 IS REJECTED. 19. GROUND NO.6 IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND IT NEEDS NO SP ECIFIC ADJUDICATION. ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 9 20. NOW I TAKE UP APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 98-99 IN ITA NO.1515(B)/2014. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE ARE AS UNDER; 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO S ET ASIDE IN SO FAR AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, I MPROPER, IRREGULAR AND OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144R.W.S.147 OF THE IT ACT IS LIABLE TO ANNULMENT I NSOFAR AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, IMPROPER, IRREGULAR AND OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND H AS BEEN MADE WITHOUT ASSUMING PROPER JURISDICTION. 3. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144 R.W.S.147 OF THE IT ACT IS LIABLE TO ANNULMENT AND IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, IMPROPER, IRREGULAR AND OPPOSED TO LAW IN SO FAR AS AS THE SAME IS MADE OPPOSED TO SEC.159 OF THE IT AC T, 1961 AND BY NOT BRINGING ON RECORDS ALL THE LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHARIFA BI LADSAB TELGI AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS SUCH THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE . 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) MYSORE ERRED IN SUSTAINING T HE ADDITION OF RS.3,06,000/-- MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS A LLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SB ACCOUNT NO.12641 SUBJE CT TO VERIFICATION OF ACTUAL AMOUNT DEPOSITED WITH COMPLE TE DISREGARD TO THE ACTUAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS SUCH THE SAME BEING OPPOSED TO LAW IS LIABLE TO SET ASIDE. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) MYSORE ERRED IN SUSTAINING TH E ADDITION OF RS.1,25,000/- TOWARDS MARGIN MONEY MADE BY THE AO AND ERRED IN ENHANCING THE SAME TO RS.5,44,2 23/- (1,25,000+3,46,053+61,170+12,000)SUBJECT TO DEDUCTI ON OF ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 10 THE DEPRECIATION AND VEHICLE INCOME OF RS.12,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT/INVESTMENTS/EXPENDITURE W ITH COMPLETE DISREGARD TO THE ACTUAL FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND AS SUCH THE SAME BEING OPPOSED TO LAW IS LIABLE TO SET ASIDE. 6. THAT THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B ARE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE IN SO FAR AS THE APPELLA NT IS NOT LIABLE THERE FOR. 21. I WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. GROU ND NO.2 & 3 ARE NOT PRESSED AND AS SUCH THEY ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESS ED. 22. REGARDING GROUND NO.4, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO TH AT AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.3,06,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CASH DEPOSIT IN SB ACCOUNT NO.12641, IT IS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE 7 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED WERE RS.1,25,000/- ON 11-09-19 97, RS.10,000/- ON 19-09-1997 AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE O N THIS ACCOUNT IN EXCESS OF TOTAL OF THESE TWO AMOUNTS I.E. 1.35 LAKH S. REGARDING THIS AMOUNT OF RS.1.35 LAKHS ALSO, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AVAILABLE ON PAGE-NO.13 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSE SSEE HAD EARNED INCOME FROM VEHICLE OF RS.45,000/-AND RS.12,000/- AND DEPR ECIATION OF RS.1,88,421/- AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVIN G SOURCES FOR THESE TWO DEPOSITS AND HENCE, NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED ON THI S ACCOUNT. ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 11 23. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 24. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIN D THAT AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING PENSION INC OME OF RS.14,400/- IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND INCOME FROM VEHICLES OF RS.45, 000/- FROM VEHICLE NO.1 AND RS.12,0000/- FROM VEHICLE NO.2 AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,88,421/- IN THE CASH FL OW STATEMENT AS INFLOW OF CASH. I FIND THAT THE SAME IS PROPER BEC AUSE THE INCOME DECLARED FROM VEHICLES WAS RS.45,000/- AND RS.12.000/- IS AF TER DEPRECIATION EXPENSES AND THE CASH FLOW WILL INCREASE BY NET INC OME + DEPRECIATION AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASH FLOW STAT EMENT. THEREFORE, ALTHOUGH THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM VEHIC LES RS.45,000/- AND RS.12,000/- SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE PRESENT YEAR IN ADDITION TO PENSION INCOME DECLARED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF RS.14,400/- BUT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CI T(A) ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN SB ACCOUNT NO.12641 IS NOT JUSTIFIE D AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DELETED. GROUND NO.4 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 25. REGARDING GROUND NO.5, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF MARGIN MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS I NCREASED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY RS.3,46,053/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF PAYMENT TOWARDS COST OF VEHICLE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.61,170/- IN RESPECT OF LOAN REPAYMENT AND RS.12, 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 12 INCOME FROM TRUCK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK STATE MENT REGARDING VEHICLE LOAN IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.15 OF THE PAPER BOOK A ND SINCE THE PAYMENT FOR VEHICLE IS MADE OUT OF LOAN FROM BANK OF RS.3.67 LA KHS, NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT TOWARDS THE COST OF VEHICLE. 26. REGARDING REPAYMENT OF LOAN RS.61,170/-, HE SUB MITTED THAT THIS REPAYMENT OF LOAN IS OUT OF INCOME FROM VEHICLE AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND THEREFORE, HIS ADDITION IS ALSO NOT J USTIFIED. HOWEVER, REGARDING INCOME OF RS.12,000/- FROM VEHICLE, HE AG REED THAT THIS INCOME HAS TO BE TAXED. 27. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 28. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THA T IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING AMOUNT BORROWED AS VEHICLE LOAN OF RS.3.67 LAKHS AND ALSO SHOWING PAYMENT OF COST OF V EHICLE RS.3,46,053/- ON PAGE NO.15 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE BANK STATEMEN T IN SUPPORT OF BOTH THESE ENTRIES IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS ALSO AV AILABLE. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT ENHANCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF PAY MENT OF COST OF VEHICLE IS NOT JUSTIFIED, SINCE THE SAME IS OUT OF BANK LOA N, I DELETE THE SAME. 29. REGARDING THE MARGIN MONEY OF RS.1.25 LAKHS AND RE-PAYMENT OF LOAN OF RS.61,170/-, I FIND THAT BOTH THESE ENTRIES ARE MADE AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND EVEN AFTER THA T, THERE IS A SURPLUS OF RS.4,11,652/- IN THE PRESENT YEAR. IN VIEW OF THES E FACTS, THESE TWO ADDITIONS OF RS.1.25 LAKHS AND RS.61,170/- ARE ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED AND ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 13 THEREFORE, I DELETE THE SAME. THE ADDITION OF RS.1 2,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM VEHICLE IS ALREADY UPHELD BY ME, WHILE DECIDING THE GROUND NO.4. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.5 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 30. GROUND NO.6 IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND THER EFORE, NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 31. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 32. NOW I TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN QUANTUM PROC EEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 I.E. ITA NO.1517(B)/2014 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO S ET ASIDE IN SO FAR AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, I MPROPER, IRREGULAR AND OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144R.W.S.147 OF THE IT ACT IS LIABLE TO ANNULMENT I NSOFAR AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, IMPROPER, IRREGULAR AND OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND H AS BEEN MADE WITHOUT ASSUMING PROPER JURISDICTION. 3. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144 R.W.S.147 OF THE IT ACT IS LIABLE TO ANNULMENT AND IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, IMPROPER, IRREGULAR AND OPPOSED TO LAW IN SO FAR AS AS THE SAME IS MADE OPPOSED TO SEC.159 OF THE IT AC T, 1961 AND BY NOT BRINGING ON RECORDS ALL THE LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHARIFA BI LADSAB TELGI AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS SUCH THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE . ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 14 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) MYSORE ERRED IN SUSTAINING T HE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/-- MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS A LLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SB ACCOUNT NO.12641 WITH COMPLETE DISREGARD TO THE ACTUAL FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND AS FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE A ND AS SUCH THE SAME BEING OPPOSED TO LAW IS LIABLE TO SET ASIDE. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) MYSORE ERRED IN SUSTAINING TH E ADDITION OF RS.1,30,000/- TOWARDS MARGIN MONEY MADE BY THE AO AND ERRED IN ENHANCING THE SAME TO RS.2,52,7 50/- (1,25,000+3,57,905+1,54,845) SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION O F THE DEPRECIATION AND VEHICLE INCOME OF RS.12,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT/INVESTMENTS/EXPENDITURE W ITH COMPLETE DISREGARD TO THE ACTUAL FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND AS SUCH THE SAME BEING OPPOSED TO LAW IS LIABLE TO SET ASIDE. 6. THAT THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B ARE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE IN SO FAR AS THE APPELLA NT IS NOT LIABLE THERE FOR. 33. I WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE G ROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION AND GROUND NO.2 & 3 ARE NOT PRESSED AND ACCORDINGLY, THEY ARE REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 34. REGARDING GROUND NO.4, HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS C ASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2.00 LAKHS IN SB ACCOUNT NO.12641 IS OUT OF CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. 35. THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 15 36. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.13 OF THE PAPER BOOK , THERE IS NO ENTRY ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK OF RS.2.00 LAKHS IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND THEREFORE, ON THIS ACCOUNT, THERE IS NO MERIT IN TH E CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THIS ADDITION IS CONFIRMED. 37. REGARDING GROUND NO.5, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MARGIN MONEY DEPOSITED BY THE ASS ESSEE OF RS.1.30 LAKHS IS DULY SHOWN IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.13 OF THE PAPER BOOK. REGARDING ENHANCEMENT MADE BY THE LD.CI T(A) ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF VEHICLE OF RS.3,57,905/- AND RE-PAYMENT OF VEHICLE LOAN OF RS.1,54,845/-, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COST OF VE HICLE IS OUT OF BANK LOAN AS CAN BE SEEN IN THE BANK STATEMENT AVAILABLE ON P AGE NO.15 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND REGARDING REPAYMENT OF LOAN, IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE SAME IS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.13 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THEREFORE, THESE TWO ENHANCEMENTS AR E NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW 38. REGARDING MARGIN MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF VEHICLE LOAN OF RS.1.3 LAKHS AND REPAYMENT OF VEHICLE LOAN OF RS.1,54,845/- I F IND THAT THESE ARE SHOWN AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.13 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND EVEN AFTER SUCH OUT FLOW, THE RE IS CASH SURPLUS IN THE PRESENT YEAR OF RS.3,57,905/- AND THEREFORE, I DELE TE BOTH THESE ADDITIONS. BUT THE ADDITION OF RS.30,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOM E FROM TWO VEHICLES ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 16 AND NET INCOME FROM PROPERTY OUT OF GROSS INCOME OF RS.45,000/- AS WELL AS INCOME OF RS.14,400/- ON ACCOUNT OF PENSION RECEIVE D AS SHOWN IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT ARE REQUIRED TO BE TAXED. HENCE, I CONFIRM THE ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT AND DELETE THE BALANCE ADDITION. GRO UND NO.5 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 39. GROUND NO.6 IS CONSEQUENTIAL REGARDING LEVY OF INTEREST. NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR. 40. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 41. NOW I TAKE UP THE QUANTUM APPEAL FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO.1514(BANG)/2014. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER; 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO S ET ASIDE IN SO FAR AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, I MPROPER, IRREGULAR AND OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144R.W.S.147 OF THE IT ACT IS LIABLE TO ANNULMENT I NSOFAR AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, IMPROPER, IRREGULAR AND OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND H AS BEEN MADE WITHOUT ASSUMING PROPER JURISDICTION. 3. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144 R.W.S.147 OF THE IT ACT IS LIABLE TO ANNULMENT AND IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, IMPROPER, IRREGULAR AND OPPOSED TO LAW IN SO FAR AS THE SAME IS MADE OPPOSED TO SEC.159 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND BY NOT BRINGING ON RECORDS ALL THE LEGAL HEIRS OF L ATE SHARIFA BI ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 17 LADSAB TELGI AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND AS SUCH THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) MYSORE ERRED IN SUSTAINING T HE ADDITION OF RS.14,46,100/-- MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SB ACCOUNT NO.12641 SUBJE CT TO VERIFICATION OF ACTUAL AMOUNT DEPOSITED WITH COMPLE TE DISREGARD TO THE ACTUAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS SUCH THE SAME BEING OPPOSED TO LAW IS LIABLE TO SET ASIDE. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) MYSORE ERRED IN SUSTAINING TH E ADDITION OF RS.4,20,100/- MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS TH E ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH INVESTMENTS IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY NO.374/IC ON 31-01-2000 WITH COMPLETE DISR EGARD TO THE ACTUAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE YEAR OF INVESTMENT AND TO THE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE DECE ASED ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH THE SAME BEING OPPOSED TO LAW IS LIABLE TO SET ASIDE. 6. THAT THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B ARE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE IN SO FAR AS THE APPELLA NT IS NOT LIABLE THERE FOR. 42. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. GROUND NO.2 & 3 ARE NOT PRESSED AND ACCORDINGLY THEY ARE REJECTED AS NOT PR ESSED. 43. REGARDING GROUND NO.4, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH IS AMOUNT OF RS.14,46,100/- IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE CASH FLOW S TATEMENT AND THE SOURCES IS OPENING BALANCE OF RS.10.03 LAKHS AND RECEIPT O F RS.4.50 LAKHS FROM ASSESSEES SON ABDUL AZIM LADSAB TELGI AND THEREFOR E, NO ADDITION IS ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 18 JUSTIFIED. AT HIS JUNCTURE A QUERY WAS RAISED BY T HE BENCH IN RESPECT OF EVIDENCE FOR RS.4.50 LAKHS CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED F ROM ASSESSEES SON SHRI ABDUL AZIM LADSAB TELGI. IT WAS FAIRLY CONCEDED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO SUCH EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE. 44. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 42. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, RECEIPT OF RS.4..50 LAKHS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E FROM HER SON CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE AND THEREFO RE, TO THIS EXTENT, I CONFIRM THE ADDITION. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF PURCHAS E OF PROPERTY OF RS.9,96,100/- IS EXPLAINED TO BE OUT OF OPENING CAS H BALANCE OF RS.10.03 LAKHS AND THEREFORE, TO THIS EXTENT, THE ADDITION I S NOT JUSTIFIED. I DELETE THIS PART ADDITION OF RS.9,96,100/- AND CONFIRM TH E ADDITION OF RS.4.50 LAKHS. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 43. REGARDING GROUND NO.5, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS GROUND IS PART OF GROUND NO.4 ON LY AND WHEN GROUND NO.4 IS DECIDED THEN NOTHING IS LEFT. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.5 IS REJECTED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 44. GROUND NO.6 IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND NEED S SO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 45. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 46. NOW I TAKE UP THE PENALTY APPEALS IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 1996-97, 2000-01 & ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 19 2001-02). IN ALL THESE THREE APPEALS, ALTHOUGH VARI OUS GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN EACH YEAR BUT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE IN EACH YEAR IS AB OUT PENALTY IMPOSED IN EACH YEAR U/S 271 (1() (C). 47. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER HIS ARGUMENTS IN QUANTUM APPEALS, THE ADDITIONS SHOULD BE DELETED AND IN THAT SITUATION, NO PENALTY WILL SURVIVE. IT WAS HI S SECOND SUBMISSION THAT EVEN IF SOME PART OF ADDITION IS UPHELD THEN ALSO T HE PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN EXPLANATIONS WHICH A RE NOT PROVED TO BE FALSE AND MERE ADDITION IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR PENAL TY. 48. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 49. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. REGAR DING PENALTY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, I FIND THAT WHILE DECIDIN G THE QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO.1511(B)/2014 BOTH THE ADDITIONS OF RS.65, 000/- AND RS.24,000/- ARE DELETED AND THEREFORE, NO PENALTY C AN BE IMPOSED IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY APPEAL FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 IS ALLOWED. 50. NOW I TAKE UP THE PENALTY APPEAL FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2000-01. IN THIS YEAR, THERE IS NO QUANTUM APPEAL. AS PER T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. NIL, BUT TWO ADDITIONS WERE MADE I.E. RS.9,600/- AND RS.48,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM PLYING OF VEHICLES. AGAINST THIS TOTAL INCOME OF RS.57,600/- , THE TAX PAYABLE WAS ONLY RS.760/- AND SINCE THE ASSESSED INCOME OF RS. 57,600/- IS TOO CLOSE ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 20 TO THE EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.50,000/- AND CONSIDERING THE AGE OF THE ASSESSEE, I FEEL THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT C ASE, ALTHOUGH, THE ADDITION IS THERE, THE PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HENCE, I D ELETE THE PENALTY. 51. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THIS APPEAL OF PEN ALTY IS ALLOWED. 52. NOW I TAKE UP THE PENALTY APPEAL FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2001-02. IN THIS YEAR, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ARE OF RS .9,600/-ON ACCOUNT OF PENSION INCOME AND RS.48,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM PLYING OF VEHICLES AND TOTAL OF BOTH COMES TO RS.57,600/-. SINCE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS TWO AMOUNTS IS SO CLOSE TO THE EXEMPT INCOM E OF RS.50,000/-, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, NO PENALTY IS JUSTIFIED IN RESP ECT OF THESE TWO ADDITIONS RESULTING INTO TAX LIABILITY OF RS.760/- CONSIDERIN G THE AGE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE THIRD ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS OF RS.14,46,10 0/- OUT OF WHICH, I HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS.9,96,100/- AND TH EREFORE, TO THE EXTENT OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS.9,96,100/-, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMP OSED. THE ADDITION UPHELD IS OF RS.4.50 LAKHS BUT FOR THIS ADDITION AL SO, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT INVESTED IS OUT OF GIFTS RECEIVED FROM HER SON, BUT THIS EXPLANATION WAS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT WAS UPHELD I N QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, BUT CONSIDERING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES SON AN D THE AGE OF THE ASSESSEE, THIS CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED T HAT THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS FALSE AND UNDER THESE FACTS, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, ALTHOUGH THE ADDITION IS UPHELD TO THE EXTENT OF RS .4.50 LAKHS, BUT THE ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 21 PENALTY ON THIS ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. I THERE FORE, DELETE THE ENTIRE PENALTY IN THIS YEAR 53. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 54. NOW I TAKE UP THE REMAINING THREE APPEAL IN RES PECT OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT, IN ITA NO.1508, 1510 AND 1 513(B)/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97, 2000-01 & 2001-02). 55. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THAT THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE MR.ABDUM AZIM LA DSAB TELGI WAS ARRESTED ON 07-11-2001 ON THE CHARGE OF DEALING IN FAKE STAMP PAPERS, THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH DISTURBED MENTALLY AND THERE FORE, THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE AND HENCE, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. 56. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 57. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. CONS IDERING THE AGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FACT THAT HER SON WAS ARRESTED AND PUT BEHIND BARS AND THE ASSESSEE ULTIMATELY DIED ON 10-01-2005, I FEEL IT PROPER THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271( 1)(B) OF THE IT ACT SHOULD BE CANCELLED BECAUSE, I FIND FORCE IN THE SU BMISSION OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR AS SESSEES NON- ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 22 COMPLIANCE AND THEREFORE, I DELETE THE PENALTY IN A LL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 58. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FOR ALL THE THREE YEA RS IN RESPECT OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 ARE ALLOWED. 59. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL THE FIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED WHEREAS ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)( C) OF T HE IT ACT ARE ALLOWED AND REMAINING THREE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN PENALTY U /S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT ARE ALSO ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. (A.K.GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER D A T E D : .06.2016 PLACE: BANGALORE AM* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER AR, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NOS.1507 TO 1517(BANG)2014. 23 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 2. DATE ON WHICH T HE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S. .. 4 DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5 . DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER DOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT . 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 11 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. 12 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER