UNITED INK & VARNISH CO.P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1531/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3021 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: E SHREEDHAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Rectification of order; Wrong claim
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER IT A NO. 1531 /MUM/201 5 : (A.Y : 20 10 - 11 ) M/S. UNITED INK & VARNISH CO. PVT. LTD., 27, TEJPAL SCHEME ROAD NO. 5, VILE PARLE (EAST), MUMBAI 57. PAN : AA ACU0086F ( APPELLANT ) VS. DCIT, RANGE - 8(3), MUMBAI (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANIL SATHE REVENUE BY : SHRI E. SHREEDHAR DATE OF HEARING : 27 /0 6 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 /0 6 /2016 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU , AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 18 , MUMBAI DATED 04 . 12 .201 4 , PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 , WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 27 . 09 .201 3 UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 2 M/S. UNITED INK & VARNISH CO. PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1531/MUM/2015 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE PE NALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AGGREGATING TO RS.21,77,000/ - FOR FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY ON THE ALLEGE D DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASES OF RS.38,58,300/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAME WAS CAPABLE OF RECONCILIATION. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENAL TY ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF BALANCES WRITTEN OFF TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,40,362/ - BY STATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE FALSE CLAIM OF BALANCES WRITTEN OFF WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED THAT THE CLAIM OF BALANCES WRITTEN OFF IS ONLY A BONA FIDE ERROR AND NOT A FALSE CLAIM. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT MAKING OF A CLAIM/EXPENDITURE, EVEN IF IT IS ULTIMATELY FOUND TO BE LEGALLY UNACCEPTABLE, CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME SO AS TO LEVY PENALTY. 5. IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUND THAT PENALTY BE DELETED, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN LEVYING PENALTY ON RS.25,40,362/ - WHEN IN FACT THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE CO MES TO RS.13,87,996/ - . 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE RECTIFICATION APPEAL U/S 154 FILED ON 11.06.2014 BY THE APPELLANT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADDITION OF RS.38,58,300/ - PERTAINING TO DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASES AND DISALLOWANCE OF BALANCE WRITTEN OFF TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,40,362/ - . 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS ERRED IN TREATING THE ADDITION OF DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.5,000/ - AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND/OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS. 3 M/S. UNITED INK & VARNISH CO. PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1531/MUM/2015 3 . ALTHOUGH ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BUT THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ACTION OF CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.21,77,000/ - . 4 . BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO NOTICE THAT THE APPELLANT IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 , WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND MANUFACTURE OF PRINTING INKS. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11, IT FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.1,62,56,988/ - WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO A SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WHEREIN THE ASSESSED LOSS HAS BEEN SCALED DOWN TO RS.73,82,310/ - . THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RETURNED AND THE ASSESSED LOSS IS ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SEC. 14A, UNPROVED PURCHASES, BALANCES WRITTEN - OFF AND DIVIDEND INCOME. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SO FAR AS THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS ARE CONCERNED, THE SAME HAVE BECOME FINAL AS ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER ANY APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF INCURRENCE OF LOSS. BE THAT AS IT MAY, SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SE C. 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THREE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, VIZ., DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASES RS. 38,58,300; DISALLOWANCE OF BALANCES WRITTEN OFF RS.25,40,362/ - ; AND, ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF DIVIDEND FROM C O - OPERATIVE BANK RS .5,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 27.9.2013 IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT EQUIVALENT TO 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED QUA THE AFORESAID THREE ADDITIONS. THIS ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN 4 M/S. UNITED INK & VARNISH CO. PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1531/MUM/2015 FURTHER AFFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE , AT THE OUTSET , POINTED OUT THAT THE NON - FILING OF APPEAL AGAINST THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT OUGHT NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS ADMISSION OF ANY DEFAULT U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE APPEAL W AS NOT FILED PRIMARILY BECAUSE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS A LOSS - MAKING CONCERN AND SUBSEQUENTLY EVEN THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED. BE THAT AS IT MAY, ON EACH OF THE THREE ADDI TIONS, THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT MERITED. FIRSTLY, OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO THE DISCUSSION IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 15.3.2013 WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF RS.38,58,300/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASES. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION REVEALS THAT ON BEING ASKED TO FURNISH PARTY - WISE DETAILS OF PURCHASES EXCEEDING RS. 5 LACS, ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS IN TERMS OF WHICH TOTAL PURCHASE S FROM TWO PARTIES AMOUNTED TO RS.5,61,36,202/ - , DETAILED AS M/S. D SV CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. RS.2,81,76,701/ - AND M/S. UNITED SPECIALTY INKS PVT. LTD. RS.2,79,59,501/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE TOTAL PURCHASES DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LO SS ACCOUNT WORKED OUT TO RS. 5,22,77,902/ - AND , THEREFORE , HE HELD THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PURCHASES REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND IN THE DETAILS FURNISHED AMOUNTING TO RS.38,58,300/ - WAS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASES. ACCORDINGLY, TH E SUM OF RS. 38,58,300/ - WAS ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME. 5 M/S. UNITED INK & VARNISH CO. PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1531/MUM/2015 6. ON THIS ASPECT, LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS WRONG INASMUCH AS TH E AMOUNTS CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE TWO PARTIES ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT NOTES AND CERTAIN RECEIPTS WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND , THEREFORE , THE PURCHASES DETAILED AT RS.5,61,36,202/ - WAS ERRONEOUS. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSE SSEE HAD NO TIME TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FINALIZED IMMEDIATELY A F TER SUBMISSION OF THE DETAILS , BUT ASSESSEE HAD MOVED AN APPLICATION SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE VIDE APPLICATION DT. 5.4 .2013 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PG. 10. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE TWO PARTIES WERE INDEED SISTER - CONCERNS , WHOSE ACCOUNT WAS ALSO CREDITED ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN RECEIPTS AND CREDIT NOTES. BEFORE US, LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE HAS REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH E COURSE O F RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS AS ALSO IN THE COURS E OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO FURNISHED RECONCILIATION OF PURCHASES FROM THE TWO PARTIES AND POINTED OUT THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 38,58,300/ - WAS ERRONEOUS AND THAT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WHICH REMAINED WAS OF A N INSI GNIFICANT FIGURE OF RS.75,302/ - . IT WAS THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT THE PENALTY, IF ANY, BE RETAINED WITH RESPECT TO THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.75,302/ - ONLY. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR WHILE DEFENDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACTUAL MATRIX BROUGHT OUT BY THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE . 6 M/S. UNITED INK & VARNISH CO. PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1531/MUM/2015 8. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 38,58,300/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASES IS MISCONCEIVED AS THE UN - RECONCILED DIFFERENCE IS O N LY RS. 75,302/ - . NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.38,58,300/ - BUT IN THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IT IS OPEN FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ADDITION ITSELF IS NOT MERITED. WE ARE CONSCIOUS THAT THE FATE OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS NOT BEFORE US BUT EVEN IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) ( C ) OF THE ACT, IF THE FACT - SITUATION ESTABLISHES NON - MA INTAINABI LI TY OF A PARTICULAR ADDITION, THEN, TO THE EXT E NT OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY, THE SAME CAN BE CONSIDERED APPROPRIATELY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND , IN FACT , ASSESS EE HAD MOVED AN APPLICATION SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO NEGATE THE ASSERTIONS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FACT - SITUATION CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE , WE DEEM IT FIT AND P ROPER TO HOLD THAT NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE WITH RESPECT TO A SUM OF RS. 37,82,998/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASES, AS SUCH ADDITION IS ITSELF UNSUSTAINABLE. HOWEVER, AS FAIRLY PUT - FORTH BY THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE , THE UN - RECONCILED BALANCE OF PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.75,302/ - WOULD BE EX I GIBLE TO PENALTY U/S 271(1 ) (C) OF THE ACT. THUS, ON THIS ASPECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO REWORK THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7 M/S. UNITED INK & VARNISH CO. PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1531/MUM/2015 9. TH E NEXT ADDITION ON WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED IS A SUM OF RS.25,40,362/ - REPRESENTING DISALLOWANCES OF BALANCES WRITTEN OFF. IN THIS REGARD, THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION IS CONTAINED IN PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.3.2013 ( SUPRA ) . THE LEARNED RE PRESENTATIVE EXPLAINED THAT THE DETAILS OF SUNDRY BALANCES WRITTEN - OFF , WHICH WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE , INCLUDED WRITE - OFF OF CAPITAL ASSETS TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,70,181/ - AND CAPITAL WORK - IN - PROGRESS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,17,815/ - . THE LEARNED REPRESEN TATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INTENDED TO DISALLOW THE AFORESAID TWO AMOUNTS WHICH TOTALS TO RS. 13,87,996/ - ONLY WHEREAS THE ACTUAL DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN WRONGLY DETERMINED AT RS.25,40,362/ - . IT HAS ALSO BEEN POINTED O UT THAT IF THE AFORESAID TOTALLING ERROR IS RECTIFIED, THE ADDITION ON THIS GROUND WOULD REMAIN AT RS. 13,87,996/ - ONLY . ON THE MERI T S OF THE LEVY, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT IT IS A CASE WHERE A CLAIM MADE FOR WRITE - OFF OF CERTAIN BALANCES, THOUGH CAPITAL IN NATURE, HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPT E D IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE , NON - ACCEPTANCE OF A CLAIM BY ITSELF WOULD NOT RENDER IT LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THAT IT WAS AN INADVERTENT MIS TAKE MADE IN TH E RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING , THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE W ATERHOUS E C OOPERS ( P ) LTD. ( SUPRA ) TO POINT OUT THAT AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE WOULD NOT JUSTIFY LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1 ) (C) OF THE A CT. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS DEFENDED THE STAND OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BY POINTING OUT THAT IN VIEW OF WRONG CLAIM MADE FOR WRITE - OFF OF CAPIT AL ITEMS, PENALTY U/S 271 ( 1 )( C ) OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE. 8 M/S. UNITED INK & VARNISH CO. PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1531/MUM/2015 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THIS ASPECT AND FIND THAT SO FAR AS THE COMPUTATIONAL ERROR IS CONCERNED, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT EX I GIBLE. INSOFAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 3 ,87,996/ - IS CONCERNED, THE SAME RELATES TO AMOUNTS WRITTEN - OFF BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE. NO DOUBT, THE CLAIM OF SUCH WRITE - OFF IS NOT TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW BUT WE FIND THAT THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER DOES NOT REFLECT ANY FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALMENT BY THE ASSESSEE. A MERE NON - ACCEPTANCE OF A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY ITSELF DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. AS A CONSEQUENC E , WE SET - ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE LEVY OF PENALTY WITH RESPECT TO THE AFORESAID ADDITION. 12. THE THIRD AND THE LAST ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO LEVY OF PENALTY IS A SUM OF RS. 5,000 / - REPRESENTING DIVIDEND EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SARASWAT CO - OP. BANK. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME , ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 5,000/ - , WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT. SO HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS NOT EX EMPT INASMUCH AS IT HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECT TO ANY DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX. THIS WAS FOR THE REASON THAT SUCH DIVIDEND INCOME WAS RECEIVED FROM A CO - OPERATIVE BANK WAS NOT EXEMPT IN TERMS OF SEC. 10 (34) OF THE ACT. 13. ON THIS ASPECT, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS A CLEAR CASE OF AN INADVERTENT ERROR ON THE PART OF 9 M/S. UNITED INK & VARNISH CO. PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1531/MUM/2015 THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE CASE OF ANY CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. DR, ON THE OT HER HAND, RELIED UPON THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO POINT OUT THAT THE EXEMPTION WAS WRONGLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE , AND ACCORDINGLY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS SOUGHT TO BE JUSTIFIED . 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FIN D THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPUGNED DIVIDEND INCOME WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SO HOWEVER, EVERY CASE OF A WRONG CLAIM CANNOT INVITE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, ESPECIAL LY IN THE PRESENT CASE WHERE THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SUGGEST ANY CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN FACT, APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE EXEMPTION HAS BEEN DENIED , THE DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT REVEAL THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD FILED ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH WERE FOUND TO BE WRONG OR OTHERWISE FALSE. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD, 322 ITR 158 , PENALTY ON THIS ASPECT OF THE ADDITION IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29TH JUNE, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - ( SANJAY GARG ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( G.S. PANNU ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE : 2 9 T H JUNE , 2016 *SSL* 10 M/S. UNITED INK & VARNISH CO. PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1531/MUM/2015 COPY TO : 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE D.R, F BENCH, MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T, MUMBAI